161 research outputs found

    Third-line sorafenib after sequential therapy with sunitinib and mTOR inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

    Get PDF
    Background: Sunitinib and everolimus have been approved for first- and second-line treatment, respectively, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The role of sorafenib, which is approved for second-line treatment after cytokines failure, is presently to be defined. Objective: To determine whether third-line sorafenib after sequential use of sunitinib and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (everolimus or temsirolimus) is feasible and effective. Design, setting, and participants: One hundred fifty medical records of patients with mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib between January 2006 and January 2010 were reviewed at four participating centers. Data regarding patients treated with the sequence sunitinib-everolimus or temsirolimus-sorafenib were extracted. Central analysis of radiographic images was performed using RECIST criteria to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (oRR) to sorafenib treatment. Measurements: PFS and oRR to sorafenib were the primary end points. Secondary outcomes were safety and overall survival (OS). Results and limitations: Thirty-four patients were eligible for the study. A median PFS of 4 mo (range: 3-6 mo) and a median OS of 7 mo since sorafenib treatment (range: 6-10 mo) were reported. Of the patients, 23.5% showed response to sorafenib, with an overall disease control rate (complete responses plus partial responses plus stable disease) of 44%. Selection bias, data incompleteness, and absence of study design are inevitable limitations of the study, although central review can strengthen the quality of presented data. Conclusions: Third-line sorafenib appears to be active and well tolerated in mRCC after first-line sunitinib and second-line everolimus or temsirolimus, with no patients interrupting sorafenib because of toxicity or lack of compliance. Prospective, placebo-controlled trials are completely lacking and are required in this setting

    The prognostic role of nephrectomy in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immunotherapy according to the novel prognostic Meet-URO score: Subanalysis of the Meet-URO 15 study

    Get PDF
    Background: Most of mRCC pts with favorable and intermediate prognosis, according to the IMDC classification, are offered a nephrectomy. However, in the immunotherapy era, the role of nephrectomy is still unclear. In the Meet-URO 15 study we reported the higher prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score compared to the IMDC score, by the addition of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the presence of bone metastases to the IMDC score, identifying five categories with progressively worse prognosis. For this reason, we aimed to explore the prognostic impact of the previous nephrectomy (PN) on mRCC pts receiving immunotherapy and according to the Meet-URO score groups. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicentric retrospective analysis on 571 pretreated mRCC pts receiving nivolumab. Univariable analysis of the correlation between PN and overall survival (OS) and multivariate analysis adjusted for IMDC score, therapy line, NLR and metastatic sites were performed. The interaction of PN with the Meet-URO prognostic groups was then evaluated. Results: 503/571 pts (88%) underwent PN. A reduced risk of death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; p< 0.001) and higher mOS and OS rate were observed in pts with PN than without (mOS: 36 vs 13 monhts; 1-year-OS 72% vs 52% and 2-year-OS 57% vs 24%, respectively). The reduced risk of death for pts who underwent PN was confirmed at the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.97; p= 0.032). The percentage of pts receiving PN progressively reduced through the five Meet-URO prognostic groups (PN: group 1: 98%, group 2: 95%, group 3: 84%, group 4: 79%, group 5: 59%). No significant interaction was observed between the PN and Meet-URO score when all the five groups were considered (p= 0.17). A significant interaction was observed when the Meet-URO groups 1,2 and 3 were taken together (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.63; p< 0.001), highlighting the significant protective role of the PN on OS for these three groups. For the Meet-URO groups 4 and 5, the interaction was indeed not significant (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51-1.30; p= 0.39). Conclusions: PN has a favourable prognostic impact on pretreated mRCC pts receiving immunotherapy. This benefit may be limited to mRCC pts with more favorable diseases as belonging to Meet-URO prognostic groups 1, 2 and 3. Further analysis of the type of PN (i.e., radical vs cytoreductive) is ongoing and confirmatory prospective evaluations are warranted

    The Geriatric G8 Score Is Associated with Survival Outcomes in Older Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the ADHERE Prospective Study of the Meet-URO Network

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) have been increasingly offered to older patients with prostate cancer (PC). However, prognostic factors relevant to their outcome with ARPIs are still little investigated. Methods and Materials: The Meet-URO network ADHERE was a prospective multicentre observational cohort study evaluating and monitoring adherence to ARPIs metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥70. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyses for radiographic progression-free (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were performed. Unsupervised median values and literature-based thresholds where available were used as cut-offs for quantitative variables. Results: Overall, 234 patients were enrolled with a median age of 78 years (73–82); 86 were treated with abiraterone (ABI) and 148 with enzalutamide (ENZ). With a median follow-up of 15.4 months (mo.), the median rPFS was 26.0 mo. (95% CI, 22.8–29.3) and OS 48.8 mo. (95% CI, 36.8–60.8). At the MVA, independent prognostic factors for both worse rPFS and OS were Geriatric G8 assessment ≤ 14 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) and PSA decline ≥50% (p < 0.001 for both); time to castration resistance ≥ 31 mo. and setting of treatment (i.e., post-ABI/ENZ) for rPFS only (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively); age ≥78 years for OS only (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Baseline G8 screening is recommended for mCRPC patients aged ≥70 to optimise ARPIs in vulnerable individuals, including early introduction of palliative care

    Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumour Cell Androgen Receptor Splice Variant-7 Status in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Detection of androgen receptor splice variant-7 (AR-V7) mRNA in circulating tumour cells (CTCs) is associated with worse outcome in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, studies rarely report comparisons with CTC counts and biopsy AR-V7 protein expression. Objective To determine the reproducibility of AdnaTest CTC AR-V7 testing, and associations with clinical characteristics, CellSearch CTC counts, tumour biopsy AR-V7 protein expression and overall survival (OS). Design, setting, and participants CTC AR-V7 status was determined for 227 peripheral blood samples, from 181 mCRPC patients with CTC counts (202 samples; 136 patients) and matched mCRPC biopsies (65 samples; 58 patients). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis CTC AR-V7 status was associated with clinical characteristics, CTC counts, and tissue biopsy AR-V7 protein expression. The association of CTC AR-V7 status and other baseline variables with OS was determined. Results and limitations Of the samples, 35% were CTC+/AR-V7+. CTC+/AR-V7+ samples had higher CellSearch CTC counts (median CTC; interquartile range [IQR]: 60, 19–184 vs 9, 2–64; Mann-Whitney test p Conclusions Studies reporting the prognostic relevance of CTC AR-V7 status must account for CTC counts. Discordant CTC AR-V7 results and AR-V7 protein expression in matched, same-patient biopsies are reported. Patient summary Liquid biopsies that determine circulating tumour cell androgen receptor splice variant-7 status have the potential to impact treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Robust clinical qualification of these assays is required before their routine use

    Management of Germ Cell Tumors During the Outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic:A Survey of International Expertise Centers

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network-Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options. RESULTS: Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19-positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the chaos, disruptions, and fears fomented by the COVID-19 illness, oncology care teams in Italy, other European countries, and Canada are delivering the enormous promise of curative management strategies for patients with testicular cancer and other germ cell tumors. At the same time, these teams are applying safe and innovative solutions and sharing best practices to minimize frequency and intensity of patient contacts with thinly stretched health care capacity
    • …
    corecore