Pharmacoeconomic and clinical implications of sequential therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients in Central and Eastern Europe

Introduction: The incidence and mortality rates of kidney cancer in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region are among the highest in the world. Access to second and subsequent lines of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapies is highly varied in the region. Despite the increasing body of evidence supporting the clinical benefit of multiple lines of treatment, access to treatment beyond first line is restricted in many of these countries.Areas covered: The adoption of targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of mRCC in the region was slow and faced many obstacles. In order to evaluate the current status of treatment beyond the first-line setting in the CEE region, this review examines the availability and reimbursement of mRCC drugs and clinical practice in institutions that treat patients with mRCC.Expert opinion: This review highlights the need to raise awareness among physicians, payers and regulators on clinical trial and cost-effectiveness data regarding the treatment of mRCC beyond the first line. The obstacles to mRCC drug access highlighted in this review need to be overcome to ensure that patients are receiving the best treatment available

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer : the report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017

BACKGROUND: In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. OBJECTIVE: To present the report of APCCC 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. CONCLUSIONS: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process

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

Combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin in urothelial cancer patients unfit for cisplatin due to impaired renal or cardiac function

PURPOSE: Combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin is the accepted treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer patients unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (days 1, 8) and carboplatin AUC-4.5 (day 1) were given every 21 days to 23 patients with creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min, cardiac ejection fraction < 45% or active ischemia. Patient characteristics included: median age 73 (56-86) years; primary site: bladder 17 (73%), upper tract 6 (27%) patients; Bajorin's prognostic groups: good 6 (26%), intermediate 11 (48%) and poor 6 (26%) patients. Data was retrospectively documented. Patients were followed until they expired. RESULTS: We obtained objective responses in 8 (34.7%) patients, (95% CI, 16.3-57.2%), including one patient with complete response. The median progression-free survival was 4 (0.2-16.5+) months and the overall survival 8.6 (0.2-45.3+) months. At time of analysis, 4 patients (17%) remained disease free; 3 of them underwent resection of residual disease. Toxicity included: infection in 9 (39%) patients; among them, one died from pneumonia; bleeding &gt; grade 2 in 3 (13%) patients and fatigue grade 3 in 2 (9%) patients. Hematologic toxicity included grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 2 (9%) patients and grade 4 neutropenia in 3 (13%) patients. Five (22%) patients discontinued therapy due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin demonstrated clinical activity in patients with advanced urothelial cancer unfit for cisplatin. It was associated with considerable toxicity. Resection of residual disease is feasible in this population