A CT-based radiomics signature, based on histogram, shape, and local-regional texture features, showed an association with immune response in advanced solid tumors. Background Reliable predictive imaging markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors are needed. Purpose To develop and validate a pretreatment CT-based radiomics signature to predict respons...

Debate is around the optimal immunization regimen for cancer vaccines since too intense vaccination schedules may exhaust reactive lymphocytes. GX301 is a telomerase-based cancer vaccine whose safety and immunological effects were tested in a phase I trial applying an eight administrations schedule. Main objective of this study was to comparatively analyse safety and immunological response to three GX301 regimens in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with response/disease stability after docetaxel chemotherapy. This was a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial registered with EudraCT (2014-000095-26) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02293707, 2014). Ninety-eight patients were randomized to receive either eight (regimen 1), four (regimen 2) or two (regimen 3) vaccine administrations. Sixty-three patients were assessable for the primary immunological end-point. Vaccine-specific immune responses were evaluated by intracellular staining for IFN, elispot and cytotoxic assay at 90 and 180 days from baseline. No major side effects were recorded. A 54% overall immune responder rate was observed with 95% of patients showing at least one vaccine-specific immune response. Rate of immunological responders and number of immunizations were proportionally related, suggesting superiority of regimens 1 and 2 over regimen 3. Overall survival did not differ among regimens in both immunological responders and non-responders and was inversely associated (P = 0.002) with increase in the number of circulating CD8 + T regulatory cells at 180 days. These data indicate that GX301 cancer vaccine is safe and immunogenic in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Schedules with high number of administrations should be preferred in future studies due to their better immunological outcome.

Purpose: The MORPHEUS platform was designed to identify early efficacy signals and evaluate the safety of novel immunotherapy combinations across cancer types. The phase Ib/II MORPHEUS-UC trial (NCT03869190) is evaluating atezolizumab plus magrolimab, niraparib, or tocilizumab in platinum-refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Additional treatment combinations were evaluated and will be reported separately. Patients and Methods: Patients had locally advanced or mUC that progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety and exploratory biomarker analyses were also conducted. Results: Seventy-six patients were randomized to receive either atezolizumab plus magrolimab (n = 16), atezolizumab plus niraparib (n = 15), atezolizumab plus tocilizumab (n = 15), or atezolizumab monotherapy (control; n = 30). No additive benefit in ORR, PFS, or OS was seen in the treatment arms versus the control. The best confirmed ORR was 26.7% with atezolizumab plus magrolimab, 6.7% with atezolizumab plus niraparib, 20.0% with atezolizumab plus tocilizumab, and 27.6% with atezolizumab monotherapy. Overall, the treatment combinations were tolerable, and adverse events were consistent with each agent's known safety profile. Trends were observed for shrinkage of programmed death-ligand 1–positive tumors (atezolizumab, atezolizumab plus magrolimab, atezolizumab plus tocilizumab), inflamed tumors, or tumors with high mutational burden (atezolizumab), and immune excluded tumors (atezolizumab plus magrolimab). Conclusions: The evaluated regimens in MORPHEUS-UC were tolerable. However, response rates for the combinations did not meet the criteria for further development in platinum-experienced locally advanced or mUC.

The goal of this article is to provide recommendations about the management of muscle-invasive (MIBC) and metastatic bladder cancer. New molecular subtypes of MIBC are associated with specific clinical–pathological characteristics. Radical cystectomy and lymph node dissection are the gold standard for treatment and neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a cisplatin-based combination should be recommended in fit patients. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in MIBC remains controversial; its use must be considered in patients with high-risk who are able to tolerate a cisplatin-based regimen, and have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Bladder-preserving approaches are reasonable alternatives to cystectomy in selected patients for whom cystectomy is not contemplated either for clinical or personal reasons. Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is the standard first-line protocol for metastatic disease. In the case of unfit patients, carboplatin–gemcitabine should be considered the preferred first-line chemotherapy treatment option, while pembrolizumab and atezolizumab can be contemplated for individuals with high PD-L1 expression. In cases of progression after platinum-based therapy, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are standard alternatives. Vinflunine is another option when anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy is not possible. There are no data from randomized clinical trials regarding moving on to immuno-oncology agents.