Search

Background Small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder (SCCB) is an extremely rare malignancy which is often associated with poor survival outcome. Literature reporting such disease is scarce. There is no standardised management. This retrospective audit examines a UK Cancer Centre’s SCCB management and survival outcomes.Methods Histopathology database at Nottingham University Hospitals, UK, was used to identify patients diagnosed with SCCB from January 2008 to January 2016.Results 27 patients had confirmed diagnosis of SCCB. Mean age at diagnosis was 68.7 (range 37–90). 30% of the cases had pure small cell histology, while the rest were mixed histological subtype. Of the 12 patients with early stage disease (stage I and II), three had radical cystectomy and chemotherapy, six had both radiotherapy and chemotherapy, two had either radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone, and one declined active treatment. Of the 12 patients with advanced disease (stage III and IV), four had chemotherapy alone, four had both radiotherapy and chemotherapy and four was for best supportive care. 13 out of 16 patients who had chemotherapy received combination of carboplatin and etoposide. Patients with advanced stage disease had medial survival of 9 months (95% CI 3.9 to 14.1 months). The median survival for patients with early disease was not reached. There is significant difference in survival between early and late stage disease (p value 0.008, Log rank test).Conclusions Our results demonstrated a reasonable survival outcome in early stage SCCB patients. Radical multimodality treatment options should not be precluded in patients with early stage SCCB.

Purpose Two previous single-arm trials have drawn conflicting conclusions regarding the activity of pazopanib in urothelial cancers after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods This randomized (1:1) open-label phase II trial compared the efficacy of pazopanib 800 mg orally with paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) in the second-line setting. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Between August 2012 and October 2014, 131 patients, out of 140 planned, were randomly assigned. The study was terminated early on the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee because of futility. Final analysis after the preplanned number of deaths (n = 110) occurred after a median follow-up of 18 months. One hundred fifteen deaths had occurred at the final data extract presented here. Median OS was 8.0 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 6.9 to 9.7 months) and 4.7 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 4.2 to 6.4 months). The hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for baseline stratification factors was 1.28 (80% CI, 0.99 to 1.67; one-sided P = .89). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 3.0 to 5.6 months) and 3.1 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 2.7 to 4.6 months; HR, 1.09; 80% CI, 0.85 to 1.40; one-sided P = .67). Discontinuations for toxicity occurred in 7.8% and 23.1% for paclitaxel and pazopanib, respectively. Conclusion Pazopanib did not have greater efficacy than paclitaxel in the second-line treatment of urothelial cancers. There was a trend toward superior OS for paclitaxel.

Purpose: Up to 30% of patients who undergo radiation for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer relapse biochemically within 5 years. We assessed if biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) is improved by adding 6 months of androgen suppression (AS; two injections of every-3-months depot of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist) to primary radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: A total of 819 patients staged: (1) cT1b-c, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≥ 7, or (2) cT2a (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997), with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread, with PSA ≤ 50 ng/mL, were centrally randomized 1:1 to either RT or RT plus AS started on day 1 of RT. Centers opted for one dose (70, 74, or 78 Gy). Biochemical DFS, the primary end point, was defined from entry until PSA relapse (Phoenix criteria) and clinical relapse by imaging or death of any cause. The trial had 80% power to detect hazard ratio (HR), 0.714 by intent-to-treat analysis stratified by dose of RT at the two-sided α = 5%., Results: The median patient age was 70 years. Among patients, 74.8% were intermediate risk and 24.8% were high risk. In the RT arm, 407 of 409 patients received RT; in the RT plus AS arm, 403 patients received RT plus AS and three patients received RT only. At 7.2 years median follow-up, RT plus AS significantly improved biochemical DFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P < .001, with 319 events), as well as clinical progression-free survival (205 events, HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84; P = .001). In exploratory analysis, no statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and dose of RT could be evidenced (heterogeneity P = .79 and P = .66, for biochemical DFS and progression-free survival, respectively). Overall survival data are not mature yet., Conclusion: Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS improves biochemical and clinical DFS of intermediate- and high-risk cT1b-c to cT2a (with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread) prostatic carcinoma, treated by radiation., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)