Search

BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling–targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling–targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling–targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling–targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P

© 2017 European Association of Urology Background In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. Objective To present the report of APCCC 2017. Design, setting, and participants Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; “oligometastatic” prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. Conclusions The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference, 10 important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer management were identified, discussed, and the experts voted on 150 predefined consensus questions. The full report of the results is summarised here.

Human dermo-epidermal skin equivalents (DE) comprising in vitro expanded autologous keratinocytes and fibroblasts are a good option for massive burn treatment. However, the lengthy expansion time required to obtain sufficient surface to cover an extensive burn together with the challenging surgical procedure limits their clinical use. The integration of DE and biodegradable scaffolds has been proposed in an effort to enhance their mechanical properties. Here, it is shown that poly(hydroxybutyrate) electrospun scaffolds (PHB) present good biocompatibility both in vitro and in vivo and are superior to poly-epsilon-caprolactone electrospun scaffolds as a substrate for skin reconstruction. Implantation of PHB scaffolds in healthy rats polarized macrophages to an M2-type that promoted constructive in vivo remodelling. Moreover, implantation of DE-PHB composites in a NOD/SCID mouse xenograft model resulted in engraftment accompanied by an increase in angiogenesis that favoured the survival of the human graft. Thus, PHB scaffolds are an attractive substrate for further exploration in skin reconstruction procedures, probably due in part to their greater angiogenic and M2 macrophage polarization properties. Copyright (c) 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers to guide personalized therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We aimed to clinically qualify androgen receptor (AR) gene status measurement in plasma DNA using multiplex droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in pre- and post-chemotherapy CRPC. Methods We optimized ddPCR assays for AR copy number and mutations and retrospectively analyzed plasma DNA from patients recruited to one of the three biomarker protocols with prospectively collected clinical data. We evaluated associations between plasma AR and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 73 chemotherapy-naïve and 98 post-docetaxel CRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone (Primary cohort) and 94 chemotherapy-naïve patients treated with enzalutamide (Secondary cohort; PREMIERE trial). Results In the primary cohort, AR gain was observed in 10 (14%) chemotherapy-naïve and 33 (34%) post-docetaxel patients and associated with worse OS [hazard ratio (HR), 3.98; 95% CI 1.74–9.10; P A (p.L702H) and 2632A>G (p.T878A)] were observed in eight (11%) post-docetaxel but no chemotherapy-naïve abiraterone-treated patients and were also associated with worse OS (HR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47–not reached; P = 0.004). There was no interaction between AR and docetaxel status (P = 0.83 for OS, P = 0.99 for PFS). In the PREMIERE trial, 11 patients (12%) with AR gain had worse PSA-PFS (sPFS) (HR 4.33; 95% CI 1.94–9.68; P

The discovery of reliable biomarkers to predict efficacy and toxicity of anticancer drugs remains one of the key challenges in cancer research. Despite its relevance, no efficient study designs to identify promising candidate biomarkers have been established. This has led to the proliferation of a myriad of exploratory studies using dissimilar strategies, most of which fail to identify any promising targets and are seldom validated. The lack of a proper methodology also determines that many anti-cancer drugs are developed below their potential, due to failure to identify predictive biomarkers. While some drugs will be systematically administered to many patients who will not benefit from them, leading to unnecessary toxicities and costs, others will never reach registration due to our inability to identify the specific patient population in which they are active. Despite these drawbacks, a limited number of outstanding predictive biomarkers have been successfully identified and validated, and have changed the standard practice of oncology. In this manuscript, a multidisciplinary panel reviews how those key biomarkers were identified and, based on those experiences, proposes a methodological framework the DESIGN guidelines-to-standardize the clinical design of biomarker identification studies and to develop future research in this pivotal field. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background Few treatments with a distinct mechanism of action are available for patients with platinum-refractory advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus either ramucirumab—a human IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist—or placebo in this patient population. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 sites in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune-checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomised (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus either intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or matching placebo on day 1 of repeating 21-day cycles, until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat in the first 437 randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02426125. Findings Between July, 2015, and April, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated either ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267). Progression-free survival was prolonged significantly in patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel (median 4·07 months [95% CI 2·96–4·47] vs 2·76 months [2·60–2·96]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·757, 95% CI 0·607–0·943; p=0·0118). A blinded independent central analysis was consistent with these results. An objective response was achieved by 53 (24·5%, 95% CI 18·8–30·3) of 216 patients allocated ramucirumab and 31 (14·0%, 9·4–18·6) of 221 assigned placebo. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of causality, in either treatment group (any grade) were fatigue, alopecia, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, and nausea. These events occurred predominantly at grade 1–2 severity. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar for patients allocated ramucirumab and placebo (156 [60%] of 258 vs 163 [62%] of 265 had an adverse event), with no unexpected toxic effects. 63 (24%) of 258 patients allocated ramucirumab and 54 (20%) of 265 assigned placebo had a serious adverse event that was judged by the investigator to be related to treatment. 38 (15%) of 258 patients allocated ramucirumab and 43 (16%) of 265 assigned placebo died on treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, of which eight (3%) and five (2%) deaths were deemed related to treatment by the investigator. Sepsis was the most common adverse event leading to death on treatment (four [2%] vs none [0%]). One fatal event of neutropenic sepsis was reported in a patient allocated ramucirumab. Interpretation To the best of our knowledge, ramucirumab plus docetaxel is the first regimen in a phase 3 study to show superior progression-free survival over chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. These data validate inhibition of VEGFR-2 signalling as a potential new therapeutic treatment option for patients with urothelial carcinoma. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Introduction: Sequential treatment with targeted agents is the standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although first-line therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended for most patients, eventually all patients become resistant to them. Therefore, optimal selection of second-line therapy is crucial. Areas covered: We have reviewed the recent literature through pubmed search and recent congress presentations to briefly describe the clinical evidence for mTOR inhibition as a valid strategy in the treatment of mRCC after progression during anti-VEGFR therapy. In addition, we outline the management of adverse events associated with these agents, highlighting the importance of switching to an alternative mechanism of action to overcome resistance to TKI and to decrease cumulative toxicity associated with sequential treatments of the same type. Expert commentary: The choice of subsequent therapy after progression to first-line is not clear. Although the new drugs cabozantinib and nivolumab have shown to be superior that everolimus, still it is unknown which patients may benefit from these therapies in second-line, so treatment should be personalized to each patient and should consider approaches with different mechanisms of action.

Background: Disseminated germ cell cancers are at high risk of developing thromboembolic complications. We evaluated the prognostic value of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in disseminated germ cell cancer. Methods: Patients with germ cell cancer receiving upfront platinum-containing chemotherapy between 2004 and 2014 were pooled from the Spanish Germ Cell Cancer Group (SGCCG) registry and reviewed for the presence of VTE. Results were validated in an independent international group of patients. We used a penalized Cox proportional hazards model including VTE as a time-varying covariate to identify and validate prognostic factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The SGCCG registry identified 416 patients from 14 referral institutions. With a median follow-up of 49 months, VTEs were observed in 9% of patients (n = 38). Events occurred at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, and after chemotherapy in 2.6%, 5.0%, and 1.4% of patients, respectively. VTE was associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 4.47, P = .02) and overall survival (OS; HR = 5.14, 95% CI = 2.22 to 11.88, P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the effect was consistent in the intermediate-risk group, both for PFS (HR = 9.52 95% CI = 2.48 to 36.58, P < .001) and OS (HR = 12.84, 95% CI = 2.01 to 82.02, P = .007). VTE at diagnosis is also an adverse prognostic variable for progression-free survival (HR = 4.64, 95% CI = 2.04 to 10.54, P < .001) and for overall survival (HR = 6.28, 95% CI = 1.68 to 17.10, P = .01). These results were validated in an independent international cohort that included 241 patients from four hospitals. Conclusions: VTE is an independent adverse prognostic factor in disseminated germ cell cancers, in particular for the intermediate prognostic group of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group classification. The presence of VTE at diagnosis has also prognostic significance and should be further explored in future prognostic classifications.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) has been studied in several clinical scenarios in advanced germ cell cancer (GCC). OBJECTIVE: To establish a clinical practice guideline for HDCT use in the treatment of GCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An expert panel reviewed information available from the literature. The panel addressed relevant issues concerning and related to HDCT. The guideline was externally reviewed by two international experts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The efficacy of HDCT has been demonstrated in selected GCC patients. The most conclusive evidence comes from retrospective analyses that need to be interpreted with caution. HDCT can cure a significant proportion of heavily treated GCC patients. When indicated, sequential HDCT with regimens containing carboplatin and etoposide, as well as peripheral stem-cell support, is recommended. There is no conclusive evidence to recommend HDCT as first-line therapy. According to a multinational retrospective pooled analysis, HDCT might be superior to conventional CT as first salvage treatment in selected patients. There is an urgent need for prospective clinical trials addressing the value of HDCT in GCC patients who experience failure on first-line cisplatin-based CT. In patients who progress on conventional-dose salvage CT, HDCT should be considered. Treatment of these patients at experienced centers is strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: It has been demonstrated that HDCT cures selected GCC patients who experience disease progression on conventional rescue regimens. The panel recommends the inclusion of GCC patients in randomized clinical trials including HDCT. PATIENT SUMMARY: This consensus establishes clinical practice guidelines for the use and study of high-dose chemotherapy in patients with germ cell cancer.

Filiació URV: SI Background: Disseminated germ cell cancers are at high risk of developing thromboembolic complications. We evaluated the prognostic value of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in disseminated germ cell cancer. Methods: Patients with germ cell cancer receiving upfront platinum-containing chemotherapy between 2004 and 2014 were pooled from the Spanish Germ Cell Cancer Group (SGCCG) registry and reviewed for the presence of VTE. Results were validated in an independent international group of patients. We used a penalized Cox proportional hazards model including VTE as a time-varying covariate to identify and validate prognostic factors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The SGCCG registry identified 416 patients from 14 referral institutions. With a median follow-up of 49 months, VTEs were observed in 9% of patients (n=38). Events occurred at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, and after chemotherapy in 2.6%, 5.0%, and 1.4% of patients, respectively. VTE was associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 4.47, P = .02) and overall survival (OS; HR=5.14, 95% CI=2.22 to 11.88, P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the effect was consistent in the intermediate-risk group, both for PFS (HR=9.52 95% CI=2.48 to 36.58, P < .001) and OS (HR=12.84, 95% CI=2.01 to 82.02, P = .007). VTE at diagnosis is also an adverse prognostic variable for progression-free survival (HR=4.64, 95% CI=2.04 to 10.54, P < .001) and for overall survival (HR=6.28, 95% CI=1.68 to 17.10, P = .01). These results were validated in an independent international cohort that included 241 patients from four hospitals. Conclusions: VTE is an independent adverse prognostic factor in disseminated germ cell cancers, in p