Search

Background: Small cell bladder cancer (SCBC) is a rare histologic subtype with relative paucity of data regarding treatment response and outcomes. We reviewed 2 databases to compare outcomes in patients with localized SCBC treated with cystectomy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). We hypothesized that survival would be similar with these therapy approaches., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional and SEER-Medicare databases to identify patients with SCBC. Overall survival (OS) was determined from the date of diagnosis to last follow-up/death. For those with nonmetastatic disease, a multivariate Cox analysis was used to compare locoregional therapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) + cystectomy versus CCRT., Results: We identified 53 patients in our institutional database and 1166 patients in SEER-Medicare with localized SCBC. Median OS (mOS) with NAC + cystectomy was 46 months (95% CI, 21-72) and 45 months (95% CI, 0-104) in the institutional and SEER-Medicare databases, respectively, whereas mOS with CCRT was 26 months (95% CI, 5-47) and 23 months (95% CI, 18-28) in the 2 series, respectively. In multivariate analysis, NAC followed by cystectomy was associated with an approximately 30% reduction in mortality compared to CCRT in both institutional and national databases but did not reach statistical significance (Institution HR 0.71, 95% CI, 0.22-2.4, P = .58; SEER HR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.49-1.08; P = .11)., Conclusions: SCBC is very aggressive with limited survival observed in our institutional and SEER-Medicare datasets regardless of locoregional therapy used. There is an unmet need to define the optimal locoregional therapy for nonmetastatic stage and identify novel therapeutic targets., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi: no conflicts to disclose. Elizabeth L. Koehne: no conflicts to disclose. Leonidas N. Diamantopoulos: no conflicts to disclose. Sarah K. Holt: no conflicts to disclose. Rishi R. Sekar: no conflicts to disclose. Fady Ghali: Consulting: Immunitybio Funda Vakar-Lopez: no conflicts to disclose. Yaw A. Nyame: no conflicts to disclose. Sarah P. Psutka: Research Funding: National Institute on Aging; Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network; PRIME Education, Inc; Guidelines Committee: American Urological Association: Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma Guidelines 2023 Advisory/Consultancy: Janssen (SunRise-4 Global Co-PI), Immunity Bio, Merck, CG Oncology John L. Gore: Research Grant funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Claire de la Calle: no conflicts to disclose. Daniel W. Lin: DSMB for the POTOMAC study with AstraZeneca; Consulting or Advisory Role—Astellas Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Janssen Oncology, and Lantheus, Research Funding –Veracyte; MDxHealth. George R. Schade: Advisor ImmunityBio, Consultant EDAP. Intellectual property licensed to Petal Surgical. Jay Liao: no conflicts to disclose. Andrew C. Hsieh: Honoraria—Hotspot Therapeutics; Research Funding—eFFECTOR Inc; Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property—MTOR modulators and uses thereof Patent number: 9629843; Use Of Translational Profiling To Identify Target Molecules For Therapeutic Treatment, Publication number: 20140288097. Todd Yezefski: Institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Astellas, participation in educational programs for Dendreon Jessica E. Hawley: consulting for Seagen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Immunity Bio; institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Crescendo Biologics, Macrogenics, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, PromiCell, Amgen, and Vaccitech. Evan Y. Yu: consulting for Aadi Bioscience, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lantheus, Loxo, Merck, Oncternal; institutional research support from Bayer, Blue Earth, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dendreon, Lantheus, Merck, Oncternal, Seagen, Surface, Taiho, Tyra. Robert B. Montgomery: Research Funding—AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen Oncology. Petros Grivas (unrelated to this manuscript in the last 2 years): consulting for MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Seagen, Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Silverback Therapeutics, BostonGene, Fresenius Kabi, Lucence Health, PureTech, G1 Therapeutics, Aadi Biosciences, CG Oncology, Strata Oncology, ImmunityBio, Asieris Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie; Institutional research funding: Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, QED Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Mirati Therapeutics, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Acrivon Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, Genentech. Jonathan L. Wright: Royalties—UpToDate; Clinical Trials/Research—Merck, Nucleix, Altor Biosciences, Pacific Edge, Seagen, Janssen, Veracyte; Consulting—ImmunityBio; Pacific Edge., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Patients with histologic subtype bladder cancer (HSBC) suffer worse outcomes than those with conventional urothelial carcinoma (UC). We sought to characterize the use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in HSBC after radical cystectomy (RC) using the National Cancer Database (NCDB)., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively queried the NCDB (2006-2019) for patients with non-metastatic bladder cancer (BC) who underwent RC (N = 45,797). Patients were stratified by histologic subtype and receipt of AC. Multivariable logistic regression determined associations of demographic and clinicopathologic features with receipt of AC. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated associations between receipt of any AC and overall survival (OS)., Results: We identified 4,469 patients with HSBC classified as squamous, adenocarcinoma, small cell, sarcomatoid, micropapillary, or plasmacytoid. Squamous comprised 31% of the HSBC cohort, followed by small cells and micropapillary. Black patients were presented with a higher prevalence of adenocarcinoma (119/322, 37.0%). Use of AC was highest in plasmacytoid and small cell (30% each) and lowest in squamous (11%). Neuroendocrine histology was independently associated with greater odds of receiving AC (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.37-1.87), while squamous cell histology was associated with lower odds (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.71). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, treatment with AC was associated with significantly longer OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81) and for squamous, sarcomatoid, and micropapillary cohorts after stratified by subtype., Conclusions: AC was variably used among patients with HSBC and was associated with OS benefit in such patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure Elizabeth L. Koehne: no conflicts to disclose. Dimitra R. Bakaloudi: no conflicts to disclose. Fady Ghali: no conflicts to disclose. Yaw Nyame: no conflicts to disclose. George R. Schade: Advisor for ImmunityBio and Consultant for EDAP TMS. Petros Grivas: consulting for 4D Pharma, Abbvie, Aadi Bioscience, Asieris Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BostonGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, CG Oncology, Dyania Health, Exelixis, Fresenius Kabi, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Guardant Health, ImmunityBio, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lucence, Merck KGaA, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Pfizer, PureTech, QED Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Strata Oncology, UroGen Pharma; institutional research funding from ALX Oncology, Acrivon Therapeutics, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Debiopharm Group, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck KGaA, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics. Todd A. Yezefski: no conflicts to disclose. Jessica E. Hawley: paid consultant to Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, and ImmunityBio and has received sponsored research funding to her institution from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Crescendo Biologics, Macrogenics, Janssen, and Vaccitech. Evan Y. Yu: consulting for Bayer, Janssen, Merck, AAA Novartis, Aadi Bioscience, Oncternal, Bristol Myers Squibb, Loxo. Institutional research support from Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dendreon, Merck, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, Blue Earth, Lantheus, Surface, and Tyra. Andrew C. Hsieh: no conflicts to disclose. R Bruce Montgomery: Research Funding—AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Clovis Oncology, Astellas Pharma, Beigene. Sarah P. Psutka: Research funding—NIA, BCAN, Janssen (Global PI SunRise 4), Steba Bio Tech (Site PI: ENLIGHTED Trial); Advisory Board—ImmunityBio, Janssen. John L. Gore: Advisor, Seagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Advisor, ImmunityBio. Jonathan L. Wright: Royalites—UpToDate; Clinical Trials—Merck, Nucleix, Janssen, Pacific Edge, Seagen, Veracyte; Consulting—ImmunityBio, Pacific Edge., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nectin-4 and Trop-2 are transmembrane targets of FDA-approved antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) Enfortumab-vedotin (EV) and Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), respectively, for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The expression and role of Nectin-4 and Trop-2 in mUC variant histology is poorly described., Materials and Methods: We evaluate membranous and cytoplasmic protein expression, and mRNA levels of Nectin-4 and Trop-2 within matched primary and metastatic mUC samples to determine heterogeneity of ADC targets in mUC variants., Results: Patients with mUC were consented for rapid autopsy immediately after death. Tissues from matched primary and metastatic lesions were collected. A total of 67 specimens from 20 patients were analyzed: 27 were UC, 17 plasmacytoid (PUC), 18 UC with squamous differentiation (UCSD), and 5 neuroendocrine (NE); 10 from primary and 57 from metastatic sites. All histology except NE expressed moderate-high levels of Nectin-4 and Trop-2 by both immunohistochemistry and RNAseq. Nectin-4 demonstrated prominent cytoplasmic staining in metastatic PUC and UCSD. Trop-2 demonstrated strong cytoplasmic and membrane staining in primary and metastatic tumors. Interestingly, Nectin-4 and Trop-2 expression are positively correlated at both mRNA and protein levels., Conclusion: UC and non-NE variants express notable level of Nectin-4 and Trop-2 in both primary and metastatic lesions. Membrane staining of Nectin-4 and Trop-2 is present but cytoplasmic staining is a more common event in both mUC and mUC variant histology. These findings support evaluation of EV and SG in heavily treated variant histology BC and urge attention on the clinical relevance of cytoplasmic localization of ADC targets., Competing Interests: Disclosure Evan Yu: Institutional grants: Daiichi-Sankyo, Taiho, Dendreon, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Blue Earth, Bayer - DAROL and citDNA, Lantheus Consulting with honorarium (in the last 3 years): Jansen, Merck, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Exelixis, Clovis, Abbvie, Sanofi-Genzyme Funda Vakar-Lopez: AstraZeneca - Virtual Advisory Board Member on metastatic urothelial cancer Petros Grivas: Institutional grants: Bavarian Nordic; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Clovis Oncology; Debiopharm; Merck KGaA; Gilead; Pfizer; MSD; QED Therapeutics; GlaxoSmithKline; G1 Therapeutics; Mirati Therapeutics Consulting: Aadi Bioscience; AstraZeneca; Asieris Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, BMS; Boston Gene, CG Oncology, Dyania Health; Exelixis; Lucence Health; Fresenius Kabi, G1 Therapeutics; Gilead; Guardant Health; ImmunityBio; Infinity Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Merck KGaA; Mirati Therapeutics; MSD; Genentech/Roche; Pfizer; PureTech; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; QED Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Strata Oncology, 4D Pharma PLC, UroGen, Silverback Therapeutics Bruce Montgomery: Institutional grants: AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Clovis Oncology, Astellas Pharma, BeiGene John K. Lee: Institutional grants: Immunomedics Michael Schweizer: Institutional grants: Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Immunomedics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Madison Vaccines, Hoffman-La Roche, Tmunity, SignalOne Bio and Ambrx, Inc. Paid consultant and/or received Honoria: Sanofi, AstraZeneca, PharmaIn and Resverlogix. Jonathan Wright Institutional grants: Merck, Veracyte, Pacific Edge, Janssen, Nucleix. Consultant: Immunity Bio Royalties: UpToDate Other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment paradigms for management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are evolving. We examined impact of surgical metastasectomy on survival across in mRCC stratified by risk-group., Methods: Multicenter retrospective analysis from the Registry of Metastatic RCC database. The cohort was subdivided utilizing Motzer criteria (favorable-, intermediate-, high-risk). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality (ACM)/overall survival (OS); secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality (CSM)/cancer-specific survival (CSS). Impact of metastasectomy was analyzed via Cox-Regression analysis adjusting for potential prognostic variables and Kaplan-Meier analysis (KMA) within each risk-group., Results: Four hundred thirty-one patients (59 favorable-risk, 274 intermediate-risk, 98 high-risk; median follow-up 27.2 months) were analyzed. Metastasectomy was performed in 22 (37%), 66 (24%), and 32 (16%) of favorable-, intermediate- and high-risk groups (P = .012). Median number of metastases at diagnosis differed significantly (favorable-risk 2, intermediate-risk 3.4, high-risk 5.1, P < .001). On Cox-regression, high-risk (HR = 1.72, P = .002) was associated with worsened ACM, while metastasectomy was associated with improved ACM (HR = 0.56, P = .005). On KMA, median OS (months) was longer with metastasectomy in favorable- (92.7 vs. 25.8, P = .003) and intermediate-risk (26.3 vs. 20.1, P = .038), but not high-risk (P = .911) groups. Metastasectomy was associated with longer CSS in favorable- (76.1 vs. 32.8, P = .004) but not intermediate- (P = .06) and high-risk (P = .595) groups., Conclusions: Metastasectomy was independently associated with improved ACM and CSM, as well as improved CSS and OS in favorable- and intermediate-risk mRCC patients. Metastasectomy may be considered as component of multimodal management strategy in favorable and intermediate-risk subgroups. In high-risk patients, metastasectomy should be deferred except in select circumstances., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To determine the impact of health care system access on outcomes for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed Hispanic and non-Hispanic White patients diagnosed with localized RCC between 2007 and 2020. We used Health Resources and Services Administration criteria to identify patients living in Medically Underserved Areas (MUA). Primary outcome all-cause mortality and cancer-specific survival using Log Rank test on Kaplan Meier Analysis. Secondary outcome was all-cause mortality and cancer specific survival on Cox Regression when adjusting for risk factors., Results: We analyzed 774 patients, 246 (31.8%) Hispanic patients and 528 (68.2%) Non-Hispanic White patients. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lower risk of ACM (HR 0.53, P = 0.019) and there was no difference for cancer specific survival (HR 0.57, P = 0.059). Living in a MUA was associated with worse all-cause mortality (P = 0.010) but not cancer specific survival (CSS) (P = 0.169). Comparing Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Whites, KMA revealed no difference in 5-year all-cause mortality (83.1% vs. 78.8%, P = 0.254) and 5-year CSS (85.7% vs. 85.4%, P = 0.403)., Conclusions: Hispanics had lower all-cause mortality risk and no significant differences in 5-year overall survival and CSS compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Our findings indicate that tertiary referral centers may help mitigate inequalities in access to care., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

A prostate cancer (CaP) patient with nonmetastatic but clinical positive lymph nodes (cN+) represents a difficult clinical scenario. We compare overall survival (OS) between cN+ men that underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and were found to have negative node status (pN) with those found to have positive nodal status (pN+), and assess predictors of discordant nodal status. We queried the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2015 for patients that were cT1-3 cN+ cM0 CaP treated with RP. Patients with 0 nodes, cT4, or cM1 disease were excluded. We compared groups based on pathologic nodal status: Discordant (cN+ -> pN) & Concordant (cN+ -> pN+). Kaplan Meier estimations were used to compare OS. Logistic regression was used to determine possible predictors of nodal status. We find that of 6470 cN+ patients, 1,367 (21.1%) underwent RP, 866 (13.4%) had confirmed nodal status. Discordant status was found in 159 (18.4%) and concordant staging in 707 (81.6%). Differences exist in PSA at diagnosis (7.3 vs. 11.2), biopsy group, # of nodes examined (7 vs. 10), race, and Charlson index. Discordant staging had longer OS compared to Concordant staging (P = 0.007) and similar OS to a 3:1 matched cohort of high risk localized CaP patients used as reference (P = 0.46). Lower Gleason Score (GG1-3) was associated with an increased likelihood of discordant staging. Clinical nodal staging is associated with a substantial false positive rate. Discordant status had better OS than Concordant status and similar OS to matched patients with localized CaP. Clinical nodal staging may inappropriately lead to noncurative therapy in a substantial number of men with potentially curable disease., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate trends and factors predicting use of renal mass biopsy (RMB) for localized Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States (US) in the context of current guidelines recommendations., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for cT1-cT3N0M0 Renal Cell Carcinoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. Temporal trends of RMB were characterized based on tumor size, treatment (partial nephrectomy [PN], radical nephrectomy [RN], ablation, and no treatment), age and Charlson Comorbidity Index with slopes compared using analysis of variance. Multivariable analysis was used to determine factors associated with use of RMB., Results: Of 338,252 patients analyzed, 11.9% (40,276) underwent RMB. Use of RMB increased throughout the study period from 1,586 (7.6%) in 2004 to 5,629 (16.2%) in 2015 (P < 0.001). Use of RMB increased greatest for ablation (27 to 63%, P < 0.001) and tumors 2-4 cm (9 to 20%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed year of diagnosis (OR = 1.06; P < 0.001), higher education (OR = 1.09; P < 0.001) and insured status (OR = 1.23; P < 0.001) were associated with increased RMB. Compared to tumors ≤2 cm, tumors 2.1-4 cm (OR = 1.36; P=<0.001), 4.1-7 cm (OR = 1.18; P <0.001) and >7 cm (OR = 1.05; P = 0.03) were associated with higher rates of RMB. Compared to RN, PN was not associated with increased RMB (OR = 1.00; P = 0.92), while ablation (OR = 10.90; P < 0.001) and no surgical treatment (OR = 4.83; P < 0.001) were., Conclusion: RMB utilization increased overall, with largest increase associated with ablation. Nonetheless, only two-thirds of patients underwent RMB with ablation, suggesting persistent underutilization. Rates of RMB for tumors ≤2 cm and in those undergoing no treatment increased less, suggesting less utilization for surveillance. However, rates for tumors >2-4 cm increased more, suggesting selective utilization of RMB to guide decision-making and risk stratification in small renal masses., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy of partial nephrectomy (PN) in setting of pT3a pathologic-upstaged renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is controversial. We compared oncologic and functional outcomes of radical nephrectomy (RN) and PN in patients with upstaged pT3a RCC., Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with cT1-2N0M0 RCC upstaged to pT3a postoperatively. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, with secondary outcomes of overall survival and de novo estimated glomular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for oncologic outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analyses (KMA) were obtained to elucidate survival outcomes., Results: A total of 929 patients had pT3a upstaging (686 [72.6%] RN; 243 [25.7%] PN; mean follow-up, 48 months). Tumor size was similar (RN 7.7 cm vs. PN 7.3 cm; P = .083). PN had decreased ΔeGFR (6.1 vs. RN 19.4 mL/min/1.73m 2 ; P < .001) and de novo eGFR < 60 (9.5% vs. 21%; P = .008). Multivariable analysis for recurrence showed increasing RENAL score (hazard ratio [HR], 3.8; P < .001), clinical T stage (HR, 1.8; P < .001), positive margin (HR, 1.57; P = .009), and high grade (HR, 1.21; P = .01) to be independent predictors, whereas surgery was not (P = .076). KMA revealed 5-year recurrence-free survival for cT1-upstaged PN, cT1-upstaged RN, cT2-upstaged PN, and cT2-upstaged RN of 79%, 74%, 70%, and 51%, respectively (P < .001). KMA revealed 5-year overall survival for cT1-upstaged PN, cT1-upstaged RN, cT2-upstaged PN, and cT2-upstaged RN of 64%, 65.2%, 56.4%, and 55.2%, respectively (P = .059)., Conclusions: In pathologically upstaged pT3a RCC, PN did not adversely affect risk of recurrence and provided functional benefit. Surgical decision-making in patients at risk for T3a upstaging should be individualized and driven by tumor as well as functional risks., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To our knowledge, placental transfer of pentamidine has not been previously studied in vivo. In the present study, the pharmacokinetics of pentamidine were analyzed in late gestation (18 days) among Sprague-Dawley rats. Pentamidine's kinetics were assessed in the following maternal compartments over a 12-hour period in 16 timed-pregnant rats: serum, liver, and kidney. Placentas were also analyzed for pentamidine concentration as were fetal brain, liver, and kidney tissues. Significant placental transfer of the drug was found, with pentamidine reaching all fetal compartments studied. Notably, by the twelfth hour fetal brain tissue achieved pentamidine concentrations that were not significantly different from those of maternal serum at the second hour of the experiment. This is an interesting observation because adult mouse and rat brains were found to be unexposed to the drug.