Endocrine therapy has historically formed the basis of treatment of metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The development of endocrine resistance has led to the development of newer endocrine drug combinations. Use of the CDK4/6 inhibitors has significantly improved progression-free survival in this group of patients. There are multiple studies of the use of P13K inhibitors and mTOR inhibitors for use as subsequent lines of therapy, particularly for endocrine resistance. The optimal sequencing of therapy should be based on medical comorbidities, prior adjuvant therapies, quality of life, side-effect profile, and disease-free interval.

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma comprises 5–10% of all urothelial carcinoma cases. This disease tends to have a more aggressive course than its lower urinary tract counterpart, with 60% of patients presenting with invasive disease and 30% of patients presenting with metastatic disease at diagnosis. The diagnostic workup of UTUC involves imaging with CT urogram, urine cytology, and direct visualization and biopsy of suspected lesions via ureteroscopy. Standard treatment of high-grade UTUC involves radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) and excision of the ipsilateral bladder cuff. Both the NCCN and EAU Guidelines include neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a treatment option for select patients with UTUC; however, there are no strict guidelines. Much of the rationale for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is based on extrapolation from data from muscle-invasive bladder cancer, which has demonstrated a 5-year OS benefit of 5–8%. Retrospective studies evaluating the use of NACT in urothelial carcinoma have yielded pathologic objective response rates of 48% in UTUC cohorts. The randomized Phase III POUT study noted a DFS advantage with adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with surveillance in UTUC, of 70% vs. 51% at 2 years. Though not the standard of care, multiple studies have explored the use of perioperative immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy in the management of invasive urothelial carcinoma. The PURE-02 study explored the use of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with high-risk UTUC. A small study of 10 patients, it showed no significant signals of activity with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab. Another Phase II study of neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible UTUC yielded more promising findings, with 3/9 patients attaining a pathologic CR and the remaining six pathologically downstaged. The ABACUS trial found a 31% pathologic complete response rate amongst cisplatin-ineligible MIBC patients treated with neoadjuvant atezolizumab. The use of adjuvant immunotherapy has been explored over three phase III trials. The CheckMate-274 trial found a DFS benefit with the addition of one year of adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk urothelial carcinoma. The IMvigor-010 study of adjuvant atezolizumab was a negative study. The AMBASSADOR trial of adjuvant pembrolizumab is pending results. With the FDA approval of erdafitinib in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, similar targets have been explored for use in perioperative use in invasive urothelial carcinoma, as with adjuvant infigratinib in the PROOF-302 trial. As the treatment paradigm for urothelial carcinoma evolves, further prospective studies are needed to expand the perioperative treatment landscape of UTUC.

Background: Challenges remain in determining the most effective treatment strategies and identifying patients who would benefit from adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of biomarkers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and their utility in prediction of treatment response, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed database for relevant studies published between January 2017 and December 2022. The search focused on biomarkers associated with mRCC and their relationship to immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy, and VEGF inhibitors in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic settings. Results: The review identified various biomarkers with predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic monitoring potential in mRCC. The review also discussed the challenges associated with anti-angiogenic and immune-checkpoint monotherapy trials and highlighted the need for personalized therapy based on molecular signatures. Conclusion: This comprehensive review provides valuable insights into the landscape of biomarkers in mRCC and their potential applications in prediction of treatment response, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating biomarker assessment into clinical practice to guide treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes in mRCC.

Background/Objectives: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare and biologically distinct subset of urothelial malignancies, comprising approximately 5–10% of urothelial cancers. UTUC presents unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, with both a higher likelihood of invasive disease at presentation and a less favorable prognosis compared to urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Current treatment strategies for UTUC are largely derived from bladder cancer studies, underscoring the need for UTUC-directed research. This review provides a comprehensive overview of UTUC, encompassing diagnostic approaches, systemic and intraluminal therapies, surgical management, and future directions. Methods: A narrative review was conducted synthesizing evidence from guideline-based recommendations, retrospective and prospective clinical studies, and ongoing trials focused on UTUC. Results: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is increasingly preferred in UTUC due to the risk of postoperative renal impairment that may preclude adjuvant cisplatin use. Surgical management includes kidney-sparing approaches and radical nephroureterectomy (RNU), with selection guided by tumor risk and patient comorbidities. While endoscopic management (EM) preserves renal function, it carries a higher recurrence and surveillance burden; RNU remains standard for high-risk cases. Systemic therapy for advanced and metastatic UTUC mirrors that of bladder urothelial carcinoma. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab showed superior efficacy over chemotherapy in the EV-302 trial, with improved response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival across subgroups, including UTUC. For patients ineligible for EV, the CheckMate-901 study supported first-line chemoimmunotherapy with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nivolumab. Further systemic therapy strategies include maintenance avelumab post-chemotherapy (JAVELIN Bladder 100), targeted therapies such as erdafitinib (THOR trial), and trastuzumab deruxtecan (DESTINY-PanTumor02) in FGFR2/3-altered and HER2-positive disease, respectively. Conclusions: Historically, the therapeutic landscape of UTUC has been extrapolated from bladder cancer; however, ongoing research specific to UTUC is deriving more precise regimens involving the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, antibody–drug conjugates, and biomarker-driven therapies.

Introduction: Prostate cancer has been generally resistant to immunotherapy approaches. Radiation can be immunostimulatory, but the extent to which standard prostate cancer treatments induce immune activation has not been well described. The bone-targeted radiopharmaceutical Radium223 (Ra223) has been proposed to enrich immune function, but clinical studies have not fully delineated whether this is true, or by what mechanisms. Enzalutamide has been shown to increase PD-L1 expression on dendritic cells, which could impact immune activation, though the extent to which this is associated with other evidence of immune activation remains uncertain, and combination strategies remain of interest. We performed a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether Radium223 (Ra223) added to enzalutamide would induce greater immune activation and clinical responses compared to enzalutamide alone in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to Arm A (enzalutamide 160 mg PO daily + Ra223 55 kBq/kg IV q4 weeks × 6 doses) or Arm B (enzalutamide 160 mg PO daily). Blood was collected at treatment start and during treatment to measure soluble immune checkpoint biomarkers (BTLA, TIM3, HVEM, GITR, LAG3, PD-1, CTLA-4, PD-L1, PD-L2, ICOS). Immunophenotyping by mass cytometry time of flight (CyTOF) was performed to measure peripheral blood mononuclear cell populations before and after treatment. CyTOF was used to determine changes in circulating immune cell population subsets before and after treatment. Biopsies were performed of an active bone metastatic lesion prior to study treatment and after at least 3 months. IHC was subsequently performed to examine changes in immune cell population subsets before and after treatment, and changes in pSTAT3 levels. Results: In total, 30 patients were enrolled, with median age 68. The median duration of follow up was 36 months. PSA responses, PFS, and OS were not significantly different between the two arms; however, the study was not powered for clinical endpoints. Peripheral blood and bone biopsy specimens were analyzed for immune correlatives. Soluble receptor concentrations showed significantly increased expression of PDL-2 in the combination arm, but this was not seen on CyTOF. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in markers of immune activation/exhaustion or immune cell population subsets in the combination arm and enzalutamide monotherapy arm. IHC also did not show a significant difference in immune cell population subsets in bone biopsy specimens before and after treatment in both arms. However, treatment with the combination arm did show significantly increased levels of pSTAT3 (p = 0.04), which was not seen in the enzalutamide monotherapy arm. Conclusions: Our study showed an overall lack of evidence for immune activation or cytokine induction with the combination, which does not make a strong case for combinatorial immunotherapy approaches. However, the combination did induce higher levels of pSTAT3, which has been implicated in radio-resistance. Therefore, the addition of a STAT3 inhibitor to the combination may be of interest to improve efficacy.