Search

BackgroundThree or four cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard neoadjuvant treatment prior to cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Although NCCN guidelines recommend 4 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine, three cycles are also commonly administered in clinical practice. In this multicenter retrospective study, we assessed a large and homogenous cohort of patients with urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) treated with three or four cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine followed by radical cystectomy, in order to explore whether three vs. four cycles were associated with different outcomes.MethodsPatients with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive UBC included in this retrospective study had to be treated with either 3 (cohort A) or 4 (cohort B) cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine as neoadjuvant therapy before undergoing radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy. Outcomes including pathologic downstaging to non-muscle invasive disease, pathologic complete response (defined as absence of disease -ypT0), overall- and cancer-specific- survival as well as time to recurrence were compared between cohorts A vs. B.ResultsA total of 219 patients treated at 14 different high-volume Institutions were included in this retrospective study. Patients who received 3 (cohort A) vs. 4 (cohort B) cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine were 160 (73,1%) vs. 59 (26,9%).At univariate analysis, the number of neoadjuvant cycles was not associated with either pathologic complete response, pathologic downstaging, time to recurrence, cancer specific, and overall survival. Of note, patients in cohort B vs. A showed a worse non-cancer specific overall survival at univariate analysis (HR= 2.53; 95 CI= 1.05 - 6.10; p=0.046), although this finding was not confirmed at multivariate analysis.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that 3 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine may be equally effective, with less long-term toxicity, compared to 4 cycles in the neoadjuvant setting.

On March 11, 2020, the WHO has declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic. As the last few months have profoundly changed the delivery of health care in the world, we should recognize the effort of numerous comprehensive cancer centers to share experiences and knowledge to develop best practices to care for oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients as well as physicians must be aware of all these constraints and profound social, personal, and medical challenges posed by the tackling of this deadly disease in everyday life in order to adjust to such a completely novel scenario. This review will discuss facing the challenges and the current approaches that cancer centers in Italy and United States are adopting in order to cope with clinical and research activities.

Sunitinib is the most commonly prescribed drug for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and has been associated with multiple adverse events related to its on–and off–target effects, including hand and foot syndrome and fatigue. It was hypothesized that sunitinib-induced fatigue may be related to off target inhibition of the AMPK enzyme, which results in impairment of energy-producing processes at a systemic level. Quercetin is a naturally occurring flavonol with established AMPK-stimulating activity. While clinical use of quercetin is limited by its poor bio-availability, quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranoside, that is isoquercetin, has an improved pharmacokinetic profile. On the grounds of the in vitro stimulatory activity with respect to AMPk, we hypothesized that oral isoquercetin could improve fatigue in kidney cancer patients receiving sunitinib. Given the lack of data on the safety of isoquercetin given concomitantly with sunitinib, we conducted a phase I trial to assess the safety of GMP manufactured isoquercetin given at two dose levels (450 and 900 mg a day). In the 12-patient study cohort included in this study, isoquercetin was administered concomitantly with 50 mg sunitinib for a median 81 days (IQR, 75.5, 86.5). None of the 12 patients required isoquercetin suspension or isoquercetin dose reduction because of adverse events. No abnormalities in ECG, heart or lower limbs doppler ultrasound were detected. A statistically significant improvement was reported for the FACIT fatigue score (6.8 points; 95% CI: 2.8–10.8; p = 0.002) and for the FACIT Adverse Events score (18.9 points; 95% CI: 9.1–28.8; p < 0.001) after isoquercetin consumption vs. baseline. In this phase I trial, isoquercetin was remarkably safe, with a preliminary signal of activity in terms of improvement of sunitinib adverse events.