Search

Background and Objectives: Primary prostatic stromal sarcoma is an exceptionally rare urological malignancy, constituting less than 0.1% of all prostatic cancers. It poses a significant clinical challenge due to its aggressive behavior and poor prognosis. Materials and Methods: We report the case of a 34-year-old male who presented with nonspecific lower urinary tract symptoms, including dysuria and increased urinary frequency. The initial diagnostic workup, including digital rectal examination and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), revealed a lobulated lesion within the prostate. A transurethral resection (TUR) was performed for diagnostic purposes, and histopathological examination revealed a "malignant mesenchymal tumor". The patient underwent a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The pathology report confirmed the diagnosis of prostatic stromal sarcoma. The postoperative follow-up, including systemic CT and MRI, showed no evidence of recurrence or metastasis thus far. Results: Multidisciplinary management is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes in all urologic malignancies; however, it becomes particularly challenging and crucial in rare cases such as primary prostatic stromal sarcoma. In our case, the patient benefited from a coordinated approach involving urology, pathology, and oncology, underscoring the importance of collaborative care for rare and aggressive tumors like this. This case highlights the importance of early detection, complete surgical excision, and consideration of adjuvant therapies, given the aggressive nature of the disease. The role of novel therapeutic strategies, including immunotherapy and targeted therapies, is also discussed in the context of metastatic sarcomas. Conclusions: This case underscores the critical need for a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to managing primary prostatic stromal sarcoma. Ongoing research on innovative therapies offers hope for improved outcomes in metastatic stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) has been approved for the treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the pivotal clinical trials did not include patients previously treated with avelumab maintenance therapy. Objective: The aim of the present retrospective analysis was to assess the effectiveness of EV following avelumab in patients with mUC enrolled in the ARON-2EV study. Patients and Methods: The study included 182 patients with mUC treated with EV following avelumab maintenance. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DoR). Statistical analysis involved Fisher exact test, Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results: Median OS and PFS were 12.7 (95% CI 10.2–14.1) and 7.9 (95% CI 6.4–9.9) months, respectively. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 5% and partial response (PR) in 34% of patients, with an ORR of 39%. The DoR in patients who achieved CR/PR was 10.9 months (95% CI 8.1–11.4). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and skin rash was 9%, followed by 8% of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea and 4% of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycemia. Conclusions: The results of our large international retrospective study confirm the effectiveness of EV and endorse its use in the population of patients with mUC treated with EV following the frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and subsequent maintenance treatment with avelumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The therapeutic landscape for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has evolved significantly due to the development of innovative combination treatments, including enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EVP). Despite these advancements, the limited availability of EVP means that platinum-based chemotherapy regimens continue to serve as the primary treatment modality for many patients with mUC. We evaluated the effect of the type of platinum chemotherapy used in combination with immunotherapy (IO) on treatment outcomes in mUC. The meta-analysis showed that cisplatin-gemcitabine plus IO combination and carboplatin-gemcitabine plus IO combination improve progression-free survival compared to platinum-gemcitabine therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62-0.82; P  < .0001 and HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98; P  < .03, respectively). However, only the cisplatin-gemcitabine plus IO combination showed overall survival (OS) benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.93; P  < .003). In comparison to the platinum-gemcitabine combination, neither the cisplatin-gemcitabine plus IO nor the carboplatin-gemcitabine plus IO combinations demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) benefit. In summary, combining cisplatin-gemcitabine with immunotherapy offers significant overall survival benefits in mUC. The exact mechanisms—whether cisplatin's immunomodulatory effects or patient demographic differences—are yet to be determined, necessitating further research to understand these outcomes better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Molecular Imaging & Radionuclide Therapy is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recent progress in adjuvant immunotherapy offers hope for improving disease-free survival in high-risk bladder cancer (BC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This review focuses on key trials such as CheckMate 274 and KEYNOTE-564, which show promising results with nivolumab in BC and pembrolizumab in RCC, including a 30% reduction in progression risk. Pembrolizumab also demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit in RCC. The review also explores the potential of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker for better therapy selection and patient stratification. It emphasizes the need for ongoing research to establish survival benefits and suggests integrating biomarkers and risk stratification to optimize adjuvant immunotherapy in BC and RCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the optimal management strategy in resectable gastric cancer. There is a debate about the efficacy of more aggressive CRT plus chemotherapy regimens in adjuvant setting. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of adjuvant CRT plus docetaxel-cisplatin-fluorouracil (DCF) versus CRT plus fluorouracil-folinic acid (FUFA) in stage III gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of stage III gastric cancer treated with adjuvant therapy after curative resection were analyzed. Patients’ disease characteristics and impacts of the regimens on median disease‑free survival (DFS) and median overall survival (OS) were analyzed retrospectively. Results: One hundred sixty‑one patients (102 in FUFA arm and 59 in DCF arm) with a median age of 56.0 (29-79) were evaluated. In the DCF arm, there were more renal toxicities (31.6% vs 6.4% P < 0.001), emergency department admissions (64.9% vs 23.7%, P < 0.001), and dose reductions/treatment modifications in the DCF arm (51.6% vs 37.2, P < 0.001). The median follow‑up was 23 months (1-124) in the FUFA arm and 26.0 months (1-77) in the DCF arm. The median DFS was 25.0 months (%95 CI, 12.7-37.2) in the DCF arm and 17.0 months(%95 CI, 2.6-31.3) in the FUFA arm, P = 0.66. The median OS was 28.0 months (%95 CI, 17.0-38.9) in the DCF arm and 25.0 months (%95 CI, 11.9-36.0) in the FUFA arm, P = 0.70. Conclusion: In conclusion, when compared with FUFA regimen, more aggressive therapy with DCF was more toxic and did not improve OS in adjuvant setting of stage III gastric cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often associated with malignant diseases and notably contributes to morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer‐associated thrombosis (CAT) brings additional costs to health expenditures and has a negative impact on oncological outcomes. Either the recurrence rate of VTE or bleeding complications are also higher in patients with cancer. Prophylactic anticoagulation has been recommended in peri‐surgical periods, inpatient settings, and high‐risk ambulatory patients. Although various risk stratification scores are used, none are ideal for identifying patients who can benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis. New risk scoring systems or biomarkers are needed to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from prophylaxis with low bleeding risk. The questions about the patients who will be given prophylaxis and those who develop thromboembolism, with which drug, and how long they will be treated are still not fully answered. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of the treatment, but management of CAT remains complex. Low molecular weight heparins and direct oral anticoagulants are effective and safe options for the treatment of CAT. Recognizing adverse effects, drug–drug interactions, and accompanying conditions that cause dose adjustment is crucial. Prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer require a multidisciplinary and patient‐based approach. Plain Language Summary: Cancer‐associated thrombosis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer.Chemotherapy, surgery, and/or use of central venous access remarkably increase the risk of thrombosis.Prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered not only in inpatient follow‐up and during peri‐surgical period but also ambulatory patients with a high risk of thrombosis.Many parameters, such as drug–drug interactions, primary side of cancer, and comorbidities of patients should be considered when selecting anticoagulant drugs.More accurate risk stratification scores or biomarkers are still an unmet need. Cancer‐associated thrombosis is a serious and common complication of cancer. This study offers important insights into the management of cancer‐associated thrombosis and the potential drug–drug interactions that can arise when using antithrombotic and antineoplastic agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have considerably improved the prognosis of solid tumors. However, this class of medications can cause immune-related adverse events, which represent a distinct spectrum of adverse events in cancer treatment. Case Report: Here we present a case of immune-related neutropenia (irN) that occurred in a 47-year-old man with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). During the 18 months of nivolumab monotherapy, severe neutropenia occurred. Buccal mucosal aphthous ulcers and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity concurrently emerged with neutropenia. The patient was diagnosed with irN after a comprehensive evaluation ruled out all other likely causes. Management and outcome: Neutropenia improved with corticosteroids, but reoccurred with the introduction of nivolumab. During the approximately nine-month follow-up period after nivolumab treatment was permanently discontinued due to neutropenia, there was no disease progression. Discussion: IrN associated with nivolumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC is uncommon. The pathophysiology of irN is not entirely understood. Corticosteroids are one of the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of irN. As ICIs become more widely used, medical oncologists will encounter this side effect more frequently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]