Obatoclax and Paclitaxel Synergistically Induce Apoptosis and Overcome Paclitaxel Resistance in Urothelial Cancer Cells

Paclitaxel is a treatment option for advanced or metastatic bladder cancer after the failure of first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine, although resistance limits its clinical benefits. Mcl-1 is an anti-apoptotic protein that promotes resistance to paclitaxel in different tumors. Obatoclax, a BH3 mimetic of the Bcl-2 family of proteins, antagonizes Mcl-1 and hence may reverse paclitaxel resistance in Mcl-1-overexpressing tumors. In this study, paclitaxel-sensitive 5637 and -resistant HT1197 bladder cancer cells were treated with paclitaxel, obatoclax, or combinations of both. Apoptosis, cell cycle, and autophagy were measured by Western blot, flow cytometry, and fluorescence microscopy. Moreover, Mcl-1 expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in bladder carcinoma tissues. Our results confirmed that paclitaxel alone induced Mcl-1 downregulation and apoptosis in 5637, but not in HT1197 cells; however, combinations of obatoclax and paclitaxel sensitized HT1197 cells to the treatment. In obatoclax-treated 5637 and obatoclax + paclitaxel-treated HT1197 cells, the blockade of the autophagic flux correlated with apoptosis and was associated with caspase-dependent cleavage of beclin-1. Obatoclax alone delayed the cell cycle in 5637, but not in HT1197 cells, whereas combinations of both retarded the cell cycle and reduced mitotic slippage. In conclusion, obatoclax sensitizes HT1197 cells to paclitaxel-induced apoptosis through the blockade of the autophagic flux and effects on the cell cycle. Furthermore, Mcl-1 is overexpressed in many invasive bladder carcinomas, and it is related to tumor progression, so Mcl-1 expression may be of predictive value in bladder cancer.España, Sistema Público Andaluz Biobanco y ISCIII-Red de Biobancos PT17/0015/004

SEOM-SOGUG clinical guideline for localized muscle invasive and advanced bladder cancer (2021)

Bladder cancer; Muscle-invasive; UrothelialCáncer de vejiga; Invasivo muscular; UrotelialCàncer de bufeta; Invasió muscular; UrotelialMost muscle-invasive bladder cancer (BC) are urothelial carcinomas (UC) of transitional origin, although histological variants of UC have been recognized. Smoking is the most important risk factor in developed countries, and the basis for prevention. UC harbors high number of genomic aberrations that make possible targeted therapies. Based on molecular features, a consensus classification identified six different MIBC subtypes. Hematuria and irritative bladder symptoms, CT scan, cystoscopy and transurethral resection are the basis for diagnosis. Radical cystectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard approach for muscle-invasive BC, although bladder preservation is an option for selected patients who wish to avoid or cannot tolerate surgery. Perioperative cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for cT2-4aN0M0 tumors, or as adjuvant in patients with pT3/4 and or pN + after radical cystectomy. Follow-up is particularly important after the availability of new salvage therapies. It should be individualized and adapted to the risk of recurrence. Cisplatin–gemcitabine is considered the standard first line for metastatic tumors. Carboplatin should replace cisplatin in cisplatin-ineligible patients. According to the EMA label, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab could be an option in cisplatin-ineligible patients with high PD-L1 expression. For patients whose disease respond or did not progress after first-line platinum chemotherapy, maintenance with avelumab prolongs survival with respect to the best supportive care. Pembrolizumab also increases survival versus vinflunine or taxanes in patients with progression after chemotherapy who have not received avelumab, as well as enfortumab vedotin in those progressing to first-line chemotherapy followed by an antiPDL1/PD1. Erdafitinib may be considered in this setting in patients with FGFR alterations. An early onset of supportive and palliative care is always strongly recommended

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022)

Diagnosis; Guidelines; Renal cell carcinomaDiagnóstico; Guías; Carcinoma de células renalesDiagnòstic; Guies; Carcinoma de cèl·lules renalsRenal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC

Cabazitaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety data from the Spanish expanded access program

[Abstract] BACKGROUND: Based on the TROPIC study results, cabazitaxel was approved for the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing on or after docetaxel. METHODS: This multi-centre program provided early access to cabazitaxel to patients with mCRPC before its commercialization. Safety data from 153 Spanish patients receiving cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) i.v. Q3W, plus oral prednisone/prednisolone 10 mg daily, are reported. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 70 years (26.8% ≥ 75 years), 94.1 and 26.8% had bone and visceral metastasis, respectively. Most had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤ 1 (88.9%) and had received a median of 8.0 cycles of last docetaxel treatment. The median of cabazitaxel cycles and cumulative dose were 6.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 4.0; 8.0) and 148.9 (IQR: 98.2; 201.4) mg/m(2), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) possibly related to cabazitaxel occurred in 143 (93.5%) patients. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia (n = 25, 16.3%) and asthenia (n = 17, 11.1%). Febrile neutropenia and grade ≥ 3 diarrhea occurred in 5.2% of the patients each. There were five (3.3%) possibly treatment-related deaths, mainly infection-related. G-CSFs were used in 114 (74.5%) patients, generally as prophylaxis (n = 107; 69.9%). Grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and nail disorders were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel administration, in a real-world setting, is tolerated by Spanish patients with mCRPC, and the AEs are manageable

Applications of non-intrusive methods to study the sand cat: a field study in the Sahara Desert

Surveys based on indirect signs and camera trapping are two non-invasive methods extensively used for monitoring elusive mammals. Both approaches can be useful to obtain key information on wildlife in remote areas, since they may allow for the logistically viable design of optimal field frameworks. The sand cat (Felis margarita) is a feline that inhabits the Sahara Desert, the Arabian Peninsula, and western Asian deserts. Its basic ecology is poorly known and the status and impacts of threats are difficult to assess. Some local population declines have been detected, and more research is needed. Based on field surveys carried out in the Atlantic Sahara, we have evaluated the applications of both methods to study this species. Our results show that (a) camera trapping provided reliable data on several key aspects of its ecology, (b) walking surveys to collect feces for molecular data failed completely, and (c) for footprints, identification problems and the marked effects of the absence of optimal substrates and the prevalence of wind are relevant handicaps. Beyond this evaluation, we provide for the first time some key aspects of the ecology of sand cats in the Sahara Desert, including habitat selection, density, diel activity, and predator–prey relationships.Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Granada/CBUA. This study was partially supported by Fundación Barcelona Zoo (PRIC Project 2017 grant)

Novel potential predictive markers of sunitinib outcomes in long-term responders versus primary refractory patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

Background: several potential predictive markers of efficacy of targeted agents in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been identified. Interindividual heterogeneity warrants further investigation. Patients and methods: multicenter, observational, retrospective study in patients with clear-cell mRCC treated with sunitinib. Patients were classified in two groups: long-term responders (LR) (progression-free survival (PFS)≥22 months and at least stable disease), and primary refractory (PR) (progressive disease within 3-months of sunitinib onset). Objectives were to compare baseline clinical factors in both populations and to correlate tumor expression of selected signaling pathways components with sunitinib PFS. Results: 123 patients were analyzed (97 LR, 26 PR). In the LR cohort, overall response rate was 79% and median duration of best response was 30 months. Median PFS and overall survival were 43.2 (95% confidence intervals[CI]:37.2-49.3) and 63.5 months (95%CI:55.1-71.9), respectively. At baseline PR patients had a significantly lower proportion of nephrectomies, higher lactate dehydrogenase and platelets levels, lower hemoglobin, shorter time to and higher presence of metastases, and increased Fuhrman grade. Higher levels of HEYL, HEY and HES1 were observed in LR, although only HEYL discriminated populations significantly (AUC[ROC]=0.704; cut-off=34.85). Increased levels of hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p were also associated with prolonged survival. No statistical significant associations between hsa-miR-23b or hsa-miR-27b and the expression of c-Met were found. Conclusions: certain mRCC patients treated with sunitinib achieve extremely long-term responses. Favorable baseline hematology values and longer time to metastasis may predict longer PFS. HEYL, hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p could be potentially used as biomarkers of sunitinib response

Novel potential predictive markers of sunitinib outcomes in long-term responders versus primary refractory patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

Background: Several potential predictive markers of efficacy of targeted agents in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been identified. Interindividual heterogeneity warrants further investigation. Patients and methods: Multicenter, observational, retrospective study in patients with clear-cell mRCC treated with sunitinib. Patients were classified in two groups: long-term responders (LR) (progression-free survival (PFS)=22 months and at least stable disease), and primary refractory (PR) (progressive disease within 3-months of sunitinib onset). Objectives were to compare baseline clinical factors in both populations and to correlate tumor expression of selected signaling pathways components with sunitinib PFS. Results: 123 patients were analyzed (97 LR, 26 PR). In the LR cohort, overall response rate was 79% and median duration of best response was 30 months. Median PFS and overall survival were 43.2 (95% confidence intervals[CI]:37.2-49.3) and 63.5 months (95%CI:55.1-71.9), respectively. At baseline PR patients had a significantly lower proportion of nephrectomies, higher lactate dehydrogenase and platelets levels, lower hemoglobin, shorter time to and higher presence of metastases, and increased Fuhrman grade. Higher levels of HEYL, HEY and HES1 were observed in LR, although only HEYL discriminated populations significantly (AUC[ROC]=0.704; cut-off=34.85). Increased levels of hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p were also associated with prolonged survival. No statistical significant associations between hsa-miR-23b or hsa-miR-27b and the expression of c-Met were found. Conclusions: Certain mRCC patients treated with sunitinib achieve extremely long-term responses. Favorable baseline hematology values and longer time to metastasis may predict longer PFS. HEYL, hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR- 628-5p could be potentially used as biomarkers of sunitinib response

Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations

SEOM clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2019)

Càncer; Immunoteràpia; RonyóCáncer; Inmunoterapia; RiñónCancer; Immunotherapy; KidneyIn this article, we review de state of the art on the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide recommendations on diagnosis and treatment. Recent advances in molecular biology have allowed the subclassification of renal tumours into different histologic variants and may help to identify future prognostic and predictive factors. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. No adjuvant therapy has demonstrated a clear benefit in overall survival. Considering the whole population of patients with advanced disease, the combination of axitinib with either pembrolizumab or avelumab increase response rate and progression-free survival, compared to sunitinib, but a longer overall survival has only been demonstrated so far with the pembrolizumab combo. For patients with IMDC intermediate and poor prognosis, nephrectomy should not be considered mandatory. In this subpopulation, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has also demonstrated a superior response rate and overall survival vs. sunitinib. In patients progressing to one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, both nivolumab and cabozantinib in monotherapy have shown benefit in overall survival compared to everolimus. Although no clear sequence can be recommended, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in patients with metastatic RCC