Search

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and

Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) theoretically are an excellent group to consider downstaging using locoregional therapy (LRT) since they do not have extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion. Once successful, this can change the treatment strategy from palliative to curative intention. Although downstaging therapy is suggested in guidelines, it is still not widely accepted. Moreover, studies on downstaging are mainly performed in high-incidence HCC countries. Therefore, our aim was to gain insight in therapeutic strategies in patients with intermediate stage HCC and their impact on intention-to-treat survival in a real-life setting in a low-incidence HCC country. We retrospectively analyzed data from the national Dutch HCC registry. From this database, consisting of 1409 patients with a diagnosis of HCC between 2005-2013 in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers, we identified 165 patients with intermediate stage HCC. Out of these patients, 63 (38%) were not offered LRT, whereas 102 (62%) did receive LRT. Subsequently, 50 (49%) of the 102 patients who received LRT were successfully downstaged. Eleven patients (22% of successfully downstaged patients) eventually underwent liver transplantation. Cox regression analysis showed that a lower MELD score, an AFP value

The authors regret that a co-author was mistakenly missed from the authorship. The following co-author should have been included in the authorship: Peter-Paul M. Willemse Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands © 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology

Background: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Methods: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice–web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. Findings: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9–43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4–17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4–15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71–1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1–18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9–14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72–1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. © 2019 European Society for Medical Oncology

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer‐related death worldwide. Despite increasing treatment options for this disease, prognosis remains poor. CRIPTO (TDGF1) protein is expressed at high levels in several human tumours and promotes oncogenic phenotype. Its expression has been correlated to poor prognosis in HCC. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the basis for the effects of CRIPTO in HCC. We investigated CRIPTO expression levels in three cohorts of clinical cirrhotic and HCC specimens. We addressed the role of CRIPTO in hepatic tumourigenesis using Cre‐loxP‐controlled lentiviral vectors expressing CRIPTO in cell line‐derived xenografts. Responses to standard treatments (sorafenib, doxorubicin) were assessed directly on xenograft‐derived ex vivo tumour slices. CRIPTO‐overexpressing patient‐derived xenografts were established and used for ex vivo drug response assays. The effects of sorafenib and doxorubicin treatment in combination with a CRIPTO pathway inhibitor were tested in ex vivo cultures of xenograft models and 3D cultures. CRIPTO protein was found highly expressed in human cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma specimens but not in those of healthy participants. Stable overexpression of CRIPTO in human HepG2 cells caused epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition, increased expression of cancer stem cell markers, and enhanced cell proliferation and migration. HepG2‐CRIPTO cells formed tumours when injected into immune‐compromised mice, whereas HepG2 cells lacking stable CRIPTO overexpression did not. High‐level CRIPTO expression in xenograft models was associated with resistance to sorafenib, which could be modulated using a CRIPTO pathway inhibitor in ex vivo tumour slices. Our data suggest that a subgroup of CRIPTO‐expressing HCC patients may benefit from a combinatorial treatment scheme and that sorafenib resistance may be circumvented by inhibition of the CRIPTO pathway. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: Understanding of the physical, functional and psychosocial health problems and needs of cancer survivors requires cross-national and cross-cultural standardization of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires that capture the full range of issues relevant to cancer survivors. To our knowledge, only one study has investigated in a comprehensive way whether a questionnaire used to evaluate HRQoL in cancer patients under active treatment is also reliable and valid when used among (long-term) cancer survivors. In this study we evaluated, in an international context, the psychometrics of HRQoL questionnaires for use among long-term, disease-free, survivors of testicular and prostate cancer.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited long-term survivors of testicular and prostate cancer from Northern and Southern Europe and from the United Kingdom who had participated in two phase III EORTC clinical trials. Participants completed the SF-36 Health Survey, the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, the QLQ-PR25 (for prostate cancer) or the QLQ-TC26 (for testicular cancer) questionnaires, and the Impact of Cancer questionnaire. Testicular cancer survivors also completed subscales from the Nordic Questionnaire for Monitoring the Age Diverse Workforce.Results: Two hundred forty-two men (66% response rate) were recruited into the study. The average time since treatment was more than 10 years. Overall, there were few missing questionnaire data, although scales related to sexuality, satisfaction with care and relationship concerns of men without partners were missing in more than 10% of cases. Debriefing showed that in general the questionnaires were accepted well. Many of the survivors scored at the upper extremes of the questionnaires, resulting in floor and ceiling effects in 64% of the scales. All of the questionnaires investigated met the threshold of 0.70 for group level reliability, with the exception of the QLQ-TC26 (mean reliability .64) and the QLQ-PR25 (mean reliability .69). The questionnaires were able to discriminate clearly between patients with and without comorbid conditions.Conclusions: The currently available HRQoL questionnaires exhibit acceptable psychometric properties and were well received by patients, but additional efforts are needed to ensure that the full range of survivor-specific issues is assessed

ObjectivesIn this pilot study we evaluated the feasibility of and methods for assessing the quality of life of long term survivors of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) phase III clinical trials. Here we report the results pertaining to the feasibility of conducting such research.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited long-term, disease-free survivors from two mature EORTC clinical trials in testicular and prostate cancer from centres in Northern and Southern Europe, and the United Kingdom (UK).ResultsA number of challenges were encountered in recruiting participating centres, obtaining medical ethical approval and in recruiting survivors and collecting the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in a timely manner. The efficiency with which the study could be conducted varied widely across centres and countries. Time to obtain medical ethical approval for the study ranged from 1.5 to 25 months. We encountered most problems with ethical approval in the UK, Italy and Belgium. In most cases, data collection was completed within 3 months (range 10 weeks–1 year). Completed questionnaires were obtained from 68% and 56%, respectively, of the testicular and prostate cancer survivors who were approached.ConclusionsHRQoL research among long-term survivors of EORTC phase III clinical trials is possible, but the process of ethical approval and data collection is a lengthy one. To minimise many of the logistical problems, long-term follow-up of patients should be an integral part of future clinical trials. Moreover, regulations governing medical ethical approval for clinical research within the EU should be carefully evaluated to facilitate long-term follow-up of cancer survivors in Europe.Keywords: Cancer survivorship, Quality of life, Prostate cancer, Testicular cancer, Long-term follow-up, Survey research, Health outcomes research