Search

Copyright of Nuclear Medicine Seminars 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.)

Cabazitaxel and 177Lu-PSMA-617 have been shown to improve survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). we aimed to evaluate the impact of sequencing cabazitaxel and 177Lu-PSMA-617 on survival outcomes in patients with mCRPC. This is a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study which included patients with mCRPC who received sequential treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 and cabazitaxel between January 2015 and December 2023. Primary outcome was progression-free survival-2 (PFS-2) A total of 68 patients with mCRPC who received sequential 177Lu-PSMA-617 and cabazitaxel were included in the study. The primary outcome, progression-free survival-2 (PFS-2), was similar in patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 first (LU-CA) and those receiving cabazitaxel (CA-LU) first (10.8 and 11.7 months, respectively; p = 0.422). The median overall survival (OS) was also similar in the LU-CA and CA-LU groups (16.6 and 19.9 months, respectively; p = 0.917). The objective response rate (ORR) for 177Lu-PSMA-617 was 23.1 % when used first and 16.1 % after cabazitaxel. ORR for cabazitaxel was 25.6 % and 31.3 % when used as the first agent and when used after 177Lu-PSMA-617, respectively. In conclusion, treatment sequencing between cabazitaxel and 177Lu-PSMA-617 did not significantly affect survival outcomes in patients with mCRPC. These findings suggest that both drugs can be effectively integrated into the mCRPC treatment paradigm without concerns about the effect of sequencing. However, prospective data are needed to optimize sequencing strategies and explore their impact on specific patient subgroups for more personalized care. • Cabazitaxel and 177Lu-PSMA-617 improve survival outcomes after docetaxel and ARPIs. • The optimal sequencing of these two drugs remains unknown. • There is no difference in median PFS2 between sequences (10.8 and 11.7 months). • The median overall survival was also similar in groups (16.6 and 19.9 months). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024., Methods: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists")., Key Findings and Limitations: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Despite improvements in survival, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a significant clinical challenge. While taxanes, new hormonal agents, radiopharmaceuticals, and PARP inhibitors offer valuable treatment options, this review explores the potential of platinum chemotherapies (carboplatin, cisplatin, and oxaliplatin) as alternative choices. Existing research demonstrates promising preliminary results for platinum-based therapies in mCRPC showing PSA response rates (7.7-95 %) and improved overall survival (8-26.6 months). However, chemotherapy-related cytopenias are a frequent side effect. Further research is underway to evaluate the efficacy of platinum regimens against specific mCRPC histopathological variants, particularly aggressive subtypes where the carboplatin and cabazitaxel combination is already recommended. The unique DNA-targeting action of platinum therapy holds promise for patients with deficient DNA repair (dDDR), especially those with BRCA mutations. This potential is supported by both preclinical and ongoing clinical research. Given the limited success of immunotherapy in mCRPC, researchers are exploring the potential for platinum therapies to enhance its efficacy. Additionally, trials are investigating the synergy of combining platinum therapy with both immunotherapy and PARP inhibitors. Further exploration into the effectiveness of platinum therapies in specific mCRPC subpopulations, particularly those with dDDR, is crucial for optimizing their future use. In conclusion, this review highlights the promising potential of platinum-based chemotherapy as a valuable treatment option for mCRPC. While current evidence is encouraging, ongoing research is essential to further optimize its efficacy, identify optimal combinations with other therapies, and better understand its impact on specific mCRPC subpopulations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Our review delves into the progress across urological malignancies and discusses ongoing challenges and future directions in antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) development, emphasising their transformative potential in cancer care., Recent Findings: ADCs have advanced from hematologic to solid tumours, notably in breast cancer, and are now pivotal in metastatic urological cancers as both monotherapies and in combination regimens, underscored by the FDA's approval of enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic urothelial cancer. Progress in metastatic prostate cancer, particularly with ADCs targeting PSMA and STEAP1, is noteworthy, although renal cell cancer presents ongoing challenges. There is a continual search for agents in the metastatic, relapsed testicular cancer landscape. ADCs have emerged as a pivotal innovation in oncology, blending targeted antibody therapy with potent cytotoxic drugs, significantly advancing treatment options for urological malignancies., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Hatice Bolek and Sevinc Balli declared no conflicts of interest to report. Yüksel Ürün declared research funding (Institutional and personal) from Turkish Oncology Group. Yüksel Ürün has served on the advisory board for Abdi-İbrahim, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Eczacıbası, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Yüksel Ürün received honoraria or has served as a consultant for Abdi-İbrahim, Astellas, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Eczacıbasi, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Human papillomavirus (HPV), an oncogenic DNA virus, is the most common sexually transmitted virus and significant public health concern globally. Despite the substantial prevalence of HPV infection among men, routine testing remains elusive due to the lack of approved HPV tests and the complexity of detection methods. Various studies have explored the link between HPV and genitourinary cancers, revealing different associations influenced by geographic variation, histological subtype and methodological differences. These findings underscore the importance of further research to elucidate the role of HPV in male urogenital cancers. This comprehensive review delves into the intricate relationship between HPV and male genitourinary cancers, shedding light on the virus's oncogenic mechanisms and its reported prevalence. A deeper understanding of HPV's implications for male health is essential for advancing public health initiatives and reducing the burden of urogenital cancers worldwide.

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., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics.)

Histamine and H1 receptors play a crucial role in the tumor microenvironment. Preclinical data showed that concomitant use of antihistamines and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might increase the effect of ICIs. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of antihistamines on the oncological outcomes of ICIs. This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary cancer center. Advanced cancer patients treated with ICIs were included in this study. A total of 133 patients receiving ICIs in the metastatic setting were included. Melanoma (33.1%) was the most common tumor type. The most common ICI was nivolumab (63.2%). Fifty-five (38.4%) patients received antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. The most common antihistamine was pheniramine (85.5%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (8.2 vs. 5.1 months, P  = 0.016) and overall survival (OS) (16.2 vs. 7.7 months, P  = 0.002) were longer in patients receiving antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. In multivariate analysis, PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40-0.98, P  = 0.042] and OS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29-0.81, P  = 0.006) were also better in those patients after adjusting for confounding factors, such as performance status, bone or liver metastasis, and concurrent chemotherapy. This study suggested that antihistamines may enhance the efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced cancer. If validated in prospective trials, antihistamines and ICIs combinations might be new options to improve oncological outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low serum sodium affects cancer prognosis, but its impact on immunotherapy is unclear. Objective: Assessing the association of pre- and post-ICI treatment sodium levels with survival. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients receiving ICI in January 2012-December 2023, collecting serum sodium levels at treatment initiation and 4 weeks post-ICI, with overall survival (OS) as the primary outcome. Results: Low sodium was observed in 125 and 119 patients pre-and post-treatment respectively. Pre-ICI and post-ICI low sodium correlated with decreased OS [10.6 vs. 22.9 months ( p = 0.001) and 11.6 vs. 27.2 months ( p = 0.009)]. Multivariate analysis identified pre-ICI low sodium [HR: 1.685; 95% CI: 1.050-2.705; p = 0.031] as an independent risk factor for worse OS. Conclusion: Low baseline serum sodium was an independent risk factor for poor OS in patients treated with ICIs.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the association between microsatellite instability (MSI) status and inflammatory indicators in patients with cancer. Patients & methods: A total of 204 patients with various cancer diagnoses, including 102 with MSI-high (MSI-H) and 102 with microsatellite stable tumors, were enrolled. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), C-reactive protein (CRP)-to-albumin ratio and systemic immune-inflammation index were evaluated. Results: In microsatellite stable patients, NLR, LMR, PLR and systemic immune-inflammation index were significantly linked to worse survival in univariate analysis, and having a LMR ≤2.6 negatively affected survival in multivariate analysis, although these indicators did not affect the survival of MSI-H patients. Conclusion: The impact of chronic inflammation on survival varies with MSI status. Further research is needed for targeted therapies in different tumors.

The advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been transformative for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Their efficacy post-surgical resection remains a contentious point. Various phase 3 RCTs have assessed their potency. Amongst evaluated agents, sunitinib and pembrolizumab have demonstrated notable disease-free survival benefits. Sunitinib's potential is diminished due to absence of clear overall survival (OS) benefits and side-effect profile. Pembrolizumab shows better tolerance, conclusive OS data are forthcoming. This scenario underscores the pressing need for advanced risk stratification methods and discovery of novel biomarkers. Existing strategies, largely pre-dating TKI and ICI therapeutic era, lack sufficient accuracy in predicting relapse-risk. Our review offers a comprehensive analysis of key phase 3 RCTs, focusing on TKIs, mTOR-inhibitors, and ICIs for adjuvant RCC treatment. The intent is to shed light on the intricate landscape of RCC treatment, guiding future research directions for optimizing patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Hatice Bolek declared no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The treatment landscape for castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is undergoing significant advancements, particularly with the emergence of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and their recent US FDA authorizations. The combination of olaparib with abiraterone and prednisone/prednisolone has gained approval for mCRPC patients harboring confirmed BRCA mutations. Subsequently, talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide was approved for patients with mutations in homologous recombination repair genes. Nevertheless, emerging evidence suggests that these treatments may confer benefits irrespective of specific biomarkers. While the understanding of biomarkers in therapy selection for mCRPC is expanding, further data are warranted to provide comprehensive elucidation for guiding clinical practice.

Background: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Methods: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes., Results: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively., Conclusions: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: This study aims to report the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus temozolomide (CAPTEM) across different lines of treatment in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs)., Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study analyzing the data of 308 patients with metastatic NETs treated with CAPTEM between 2010 and 2022 in 34 different hospitals across various regions of Turkey., Results: The median follow-up time was 41.0 months (range: 1.7-212.1), and the median age was 53 years (range: 22-79). Our results across the entire patient cohort showed a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.6 months and a median overall survival (OS) of 60.4 months. First-line CAPTEM treatment appeared more effective, with a median PFS of 16.1 months and a median OS of 105.8 months (median PFS 16.1, 7.9, and 9.6 months in first-, second- and ≥third-line respectively, P = .01; with median OS values of 105.8, 47.2, and 24.1 months, respectively, P = .003) In terms of ORR, the first-line treatment again performed better, resulting in an ORR of 54.7% compared to 33.3% and 30.0% in the second and third or higher lines, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3-4 side effects occurred only in 22.5% of the patients, leading to a discontinuation rate of 9.5%. Despite the differences in outcomes based on treatment line, we did not observe a significant difference in terms of side effects between the first and subsequent lines of treatment., Conclusions and Relevance: The substantial superior outcomes in patients receiving first-line CAPTEM treatment highlight its potential as an effective treatment strategy for patients with metastatic NET., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Visceral metastasis (VM) and a higher number of bone metastasis generally define high volume/risk in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Subgroup analysis of pivotal trials did not show a clear benefit of second-generation non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) in patients with VM. However, subgroup analysis of the trial assessing abiraterone acetate, a CYP 17 inhibitor, plus prednisone (AAP) showed an improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mCSPC with VM. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and congress abstracts for the phase III randomized controlled trials of second-generation NSAAs and AAP in patients with mCSPC. In this pooled analysis, we included 6485 patients from the 6 phase III trials. The rate of patients with VM was 15.2%. Interestingly, in contrast to NSAAs, AAP seems to be effective in improving OS among patients with VM (hazard ratio, HR: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.72-1.11, P = .30 for second-generation NSAAs; HR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.40-0.84, P = .004 for AAP). In contrast, both second-generation NSAAs (HR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.57-0.70, P < .001) and AAP (HR: 0.68, 95% CI, 0.57-0.81, P < .001) improved OS in patients without VM. In this pooled analysis, we demonstrate that while AAP provided an OS improvement in patients with VM, second-generation NSAAs did not demonstrate a similar OS benefit in this population., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions., Results and Limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer., Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Twitter Summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer., Take-Home Message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Aurelis Omlin: Advisory role (compensated, institutional): Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Molecular Partners, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis. Research support (institutional): TEVA, Janssen. Travel support: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi Aventis. Speakers Bureau (compensated, institutional): Bayer, Astellas, Janssen. Fizazi Karim: Participation to advisory boards or talks for: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. Honoraria are provided to Gustave Roussy, my institution. Participation to advisory boards with personal honorarium for: CureVac, Orion. Bossi Alberto: Honoraria: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Consulting or advisory role: Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, Myovant. Speakers’ bureau: Astellas, Ipsen, Elketa. Research funding: Astellas, Ipsen, Myovant. Travel, accommodations, expenses: Janssen. Tombal Bertrand: Advisor for Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Curium, Ferring, Myovant, Janssens, MSD, Novartis (AAA), Pfizer, Sanofi. Gillessen Silke: SG received personal honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Sanofi, Orion, Roche, Amgen, MSD; other honoraria from RSI (Televisione Svizzera Italiana); invited speaker for ESMO, Swiss group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary oncology (SAMO), Orikata academy research group, China Anti-Cancer Association Genitourinary Oncology Committee (CACA-GU); Speaker’s bureau for Janssen Cilag; travel grant from ProteoMEdiX; institutional honoraria for advisory boards for Bayer, Janssen Cilag, Roche, AAA International including Indipendent Data Monitoring Committee and IDMC and Steering Committee member for Amgen, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Astellas Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceutcials, MSD, Pfizer, Telixpharma, BMS and Orion; patent royalties and other intellectual property for a research method for biomarker WO2009138392. Ian Davis: Research Funding: Company: Astellas Pharma, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Pfizer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Roche/Genentech, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: MSD Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: AstraZeneca, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Janssen Oncology, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Eisai, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bayer, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Amgen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Movember Foundation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Exelixis, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Ipsen, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Medivation, Recipient: Your Institution; Company: Seagen, Recipient: Your Institution. Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Please describe: International Patent Application No: PCT /US2004/032147 (NY-ESO-1) through Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; Recipient: You. Christopher Sweeney: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Dendreon; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lilly, Genentech. Eric J. Small: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Jannsen, Johnson & Johnson; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Jannsen, Fortis, Teon, Ulgragenyx, Fortis, Harpoon Johann de Bono: Receipt of grants/research supports: Professor De Bono is an employee of The Institute of Cancer Research, which has received funding or other support for his research work from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and which has a commercial interest in abiraterone, PARP inhibition in DNA repair defective cancers and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors (no personal income); Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Professor De Bono has served on advisory boards and received fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bioxcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Janssen, Menarini Silicon. Biosystems, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Qiagen, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Terumo, Vertex Pharmaceuticals; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, MSD. Matthew Smith: Receipt of grants/research supports: Clinical trial funding to my institution from: Amgen, Bayer, ESSA, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen, ORIC, Pfizer. Neal Shore: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Clovis Oncology, Cold Genesys, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, Foundation Medicine, Genesis Care, Invitae, Janssen, MDxhealth, Merck, Myvovant, Myriad, Nymox, Pacific Edge, Pfizer, Phosphorous, Propella, Sanofi, Genzyme, Sesen Bio, Tolmar, Urogen; Partecipation in a company sponsored speaker's bureau: Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Foundation Medicina, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Guardant Health. Nicholas James: Receipt of grants/research supports: • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Astellas. • Funding for RADIO trial bladder cancer – Coordinating. PI – financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca. • Funding for STAMPEDE trial – Coordinating PI – No. financial interest, Institutional. Name of commercial company: Janssen; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: • Advisory Board – Advice around PARP inhibitors, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: AstraZeneca dvisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Clovis. Expert Testimony – Assisted with submissions. regarding licensing for abiraterone, Institutional>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal, €5001–€10,000. Name of commercial company: Janssen. Advisory Board – Bladder cancer therapy, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Merck. Advisory Board – Prostate cancer therapies, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Novartis Expert Testimony – Providing STAMPEDE trial data to facilitate licence extensions internationally for docetaxel, Institutional,>€100,001. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Advisory Board - Docetaxel, Personal,<€5000. Name of commercial company: Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Novartis. Nicolas MOTTET: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Sanofi Pasteur, Pierre Fabre; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Jansen, BMS, Bayer, IPSEN, Ferring, Sanofi, Steba, Astra Zeneca, Carrik, Arquer. diagnostics, GE, Takeda. Thomas ZILLI. AFFILIATION: Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Varian Medical Systems International AG; Debiopharm. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm, Ferring, Varian Medical Systems International AG. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Geneva 07.02.2022. Christopher Logothetis. AFFILIATION: MD Anderson Cancer Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Aragon Pharmaceuticals. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: None. Stock shareholder: None. Spouse/partner: None. Other support (please specify): None. Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. William Oh. AFFILIATION: Chief Medical Officer at Sema4 and Clinical Professor of Medicine, Div. of Hematology/Medical Oncology at Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: GSK, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speakers bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 7, 2022. Himisha Beltran. AFFILIATION: Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, AbbVie/Stemcentrx, Eli Lilly, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Janssen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Amgen, Oncorus, LOXO. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen. AFFILIATION: Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Only directly to my hospital; Lilly, Merck and Finnish Cancer Society. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: BMS, Merck. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: NONE. Stock shareholder: NONE. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify):reimbursement of expenses to attend conference; Sanofi. Signature: Date: Feb 7, 2022. Prof. Mark A. Rubin, MD. AFFILIATION: University of Bern, Department for BioMedical Research (DBMR). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Janssen, Roche, Novartis. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: NeoGenomics Labs. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Dr. Thomas Steuber. AFFILIATION: Martini-Klinik, Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: NONE. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, ProteoMedix, Sanofi, Merck, Astra Zeneca. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: Feb 8, 2022. Prof. Rob Bristow. AFFILIATION: University of Manchester. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. IGNACIO DURAN. AFFILIATION: HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO MARQUES DE VALDECILLA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Roche and Astra-Zeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, Roche- Genentech, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma, Bayer, Novartis. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. FERNANDO MALUF. AFFILIATION: ONCOLOGIST. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Hiroyoshi Suzuki. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Toho University Sakura Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Takeda, AsahiKasei, Taiho, Ono, Chugai, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Nihon, Nippon Shinyaku. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Chuga-Roche, MSD. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Danny M. Rabah. AFFILIATION: King Saud University and king Faisal specialist hospital and research centre. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. LEVENT TÜRKERİ. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Mark Frydenberg. AFFILIATION: ACIBADEM M.A. AYDINLAR UNIVERSITY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 8th 2022. Anders Bjartell. AFFILIATION: Dept. Of Urology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Sweden. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Ferring, Bayer, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Recordati, Sandoz. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, IPSEN, Janssen, Recordati, Sandoz. Stock shareholder: LIDDS Pharma, Glactone Pharma, WntResearch. Spouse/partner: NONE. Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Dingwei Ye. AFFILIATION: Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Ros Eeles. AFFILIATION: ………………………………………. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: GU-ASCO, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, University of Chicago, ESMO, AstraZeneca UK Limited. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Honorarium as speaker. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): January 2016. Signature: Date: February 15th 2022. Inge van Oort. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Bayer, MSD-Astra Zeneca, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Bayer, Astellas. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Ravindran Kanesvaran. AFFILIATION: Urology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Sanofi, Eisai. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer. Stock shareholder: Spouse/partner: Other support (please specify): Signature: Date: February 22nd 2022. Signature: Date: February 9th 2022. Nicola Fossati. AFFILIATION: Urology, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, CH. I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: February 1st March 2022. Hiroji Uemura. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Yokohama City University Medical Center. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Dai-ichi Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Chugai. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 7th 2022. Lisa Horvath. AFFILIATION: Chris O′Brien Lifehouse. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Imagion Biosystems. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Janssen, Bayer. Stock shareholder: Imagion Biosystems. Spouse/partner: Connected Medicine Solutions (Employee, stocks). Other support (please specify): none. Signature: Date: March 9th 2022. Robert Reiter. AFFILIATION: UCLA Urology. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 11th 2022. Daniel Castellano. AFFILIATION: MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST HEAD GU UNIT HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE. MADRID-UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports: JANSSEN. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ASTELLAS, ROCHE, MERCK, PFIZER, NOVARTIS, MSD, BMS, IPSEN, GILEAD, JANSSEN, BAYER. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: none. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): none. Signature: 28th March 2022. Sandy Srinivas. AFFILIATION: Stanford University, CA. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:BAYER, JANSSEN, MERCK, NOVARTIS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31ST March 2022. Matthew Sydes. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASTELLAS, CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, JANSSEN, NOVARTIS, PFIZER, SANOFI AVENTIS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:ELI LILLY, JANSSEN. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Ekeke, Onyanunam Ngozi. AFFILIATION: DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT TEACHING HOSPITAL, PORT HARCOUT, NIGERIA. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 30 h 2022. Susan Halabi, PhD. AFFILIATION: Duke University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:ASCO TAPUR, Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Sanofi, Aveo Oncology. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Cora N. Sternberg, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: Eeill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Genzyme, Gilead, Incyte, Medscape, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Msd, Pfizer, Roche, Impact Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, Urotoday, Cco Clinical, Nci. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3Oth March 2022. Hirotsugu Uemura. AFFILIATION:. Kindai University Faculty of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:AstraZeneca, Janssen, Takeda, Astellas, Sanofi, Taiho, Ono pharm, Kissei. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Ono, BMS, Pfizer. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Orazio Caffo. AFFILIATION: Santa Chiara Hospital – Trento (Italy). Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Astella, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Valérie Fonteyne. AFFILIATION:Ghent University Hospital. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Ipsen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Ipsen, Astellas, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Muhammad Bulbul. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. Claire Vale. AFFILIATION: MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: March 31st 2022. MRABTI Hind. AFFILIATION: Institut National d′oncologie, Mohamed V University. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Sanofi, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Deborah Mukherji. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen, BMS. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO. AFFILIATION: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Howard I. Scher, MD, FASCO - Disclosure Form. March 31, 2022. Honoraria. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Jefferson Health. Elsevier, LTD. Arsenal Capital. Consultancy/Advisory Board. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Konica Minolta,Inc. Amgen. Bayer. Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Pfizer Inc. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. WCG Oncology. Research Funding to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. AIQ Pharma. Epic Sciences. Janssen. Menarini Silicon Biosystems. ThermoFisher. Evan Y. Yu, M.D. AFFILIATION: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and University of Washington. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Bayer, Blue Earth, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dendreon, Lantheus, Merck, Seagen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Abbvie, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Clovis, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Gedske Daugaard. AFFILIATION: Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas, MSD, Bristol Myers. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Celestia S. Higano, MD, FACP. AFFILIATION: University of Columbia. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None last 24 months. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AstraZeneca, Astellas, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myovant, Tolmar, Vaccitech, Verity. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:none. Stock shareholder: CTI Biopharma. Spouse/partner: none. Other support (please specify): Expert testimony, Ferring. Signature: 31st March 2022. Dr. Vedang Murthy. AFFILIATION: Radiotion Oncology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Varian Medical Systems. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Gero Kramer. AFFILIATION: Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:None. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Ferring. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 31st March 2022. Niven Mehra. AFFILIATION: Radboudumc. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Astrazeneca, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Juan Pablo Sade. AFFILIATION: Instituto Alexnder Fleming, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen, Astellas, AtraZeneca, MSD, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Janssen, Bayer, Pfizer, Astellas. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 3rd April 2022. Dr Maria De Santis. AFFILIATION: Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Urology. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:AAA, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bioclin, BMS, EISAI, Ferring, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, SeaGen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Iwona Skoneczna. AFFILIATION: Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Szpital Grochowski, Warsaw, Poland. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Roche. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 1st April 2022. Laurence Klotz. AFFILIATION: University of Toronto. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:miR Scientific, Exact Imaging. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:miR Scientific, Antev. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 30th March 2022. Yüksel Ürün. AFFILIATION: Ankara University School of Medicine. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Astellas, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Astellas, Amgen, AtraZeneca, BMS, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 01st April 2022. Howard R. Soule. AFFILIATION: Prostate Cancer Foundation. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Compugen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 4th April 2022. Simon Chowdhury. AFFILIATION:. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:Janssen Oncology, Beigene, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer,. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Sandoz. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Janssen Oncology (Advisory board). Novartis (advisory board, consultancy). Bayer (Advisory board). Astellas (advisory board, consultancy). Athenex (advisory board). Beigene (advisory board). Clovis Oncology (Advisory board). Telix (advisory board, consultancy). Curve.Life (founder and stock). Huma (consulting fees and Stock). Remedy Bio: consulting fees, Stock. Signature: 4th April 2022. Daniel Heinrich. AFFILIATION: Innlandet Hospital, Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Gjøvik, Norway. X I have no potential conflict of interest to report. Signature: Date: 28th February 2022. Raya Leibowitz. AFFILIATION: Shamir Medical Center, Zerifin, Be’er Yaakov, Israel. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:MSD, BMS, Isotopia, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Signature: 05th April 2022. Raja Khauli. AFFILIATION: American University of Beirut Medical Ctr Clinical. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): honoraria: Astellas, Janssen, Algorithm SAL. Signature: 06th April 2022. Axel Merseburger. AFFILIATION: Campus Lübeck, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify):. Lectures/Speaker/Honoraria:. Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Janssen, Takeda, TEVA, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Consultant:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer, Recordati and Roche. Research and clinical trials:. AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, EUSAPharm, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Takeda, Teva, Pfizer und Roche. Signature: 06th April 2022. Carmel Pezaro. AFFILIATION: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Type of affiliation / financial interest Name of commercial company. Receipt of grants/research supports:none. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees:Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau:. Stock shareholder:. Spouse/partner:. Other support (please specify): Bayer, Ipsen (travel support). Signature: 06th April 2022. All remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management., Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement., Results and Limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis., Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A novel prognostic model was recommended for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). In this study, we aimed to externally validate a novel risk model for the IMDC-favorable risk group in patients with mRCC., Methods: The Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) is a multicenter registry that includes 13 cancer centers in Turkey. As described by Schmidt et al., 3 parameters (ie, time from diagnosis to systemic therapy <3 vs. ≥3 years, Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] 80 vs. >80, and the presence of brain, liver, or bone metastasis) were used to divide the IMDC favorable risk group into 2 new categories: very favorable and favorable risk groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) in the very favorable and favorable risk groups were the secondary endpoints., Results: A total of 545 patients with mRCC from all IMDC risk groups and 112 patients from the favorable risk group were included in this study. According to the novel classification model, 44 (39.3%) and 68 (60.7%) patients with former favorable risk were categorized into very favorable and favorable risk groups, respectively. The median OS (55.8 months vs. 34.2 months, P = .025) and TTF (25.5 months vs. 15.5 months, P = .010) were longer in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group. The concordance index of the new IMDC model in all patients was 0.65 for OS. Despite the higher ORR in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (52.4% vs. 44.7, P = .573)., Conclusions: This was the first study to externally validate the novel IMDC risk model presented in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2021., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with tumor homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. We present exploratory analyses on the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing as an additional method to identify patients with mCRPC with HRR gene alterations who may be eligible for olaparib treatment., Patients and Methods: Plasma samples collected during screening in PROfound were retrospectively sequenced using the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx test for BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in ctDNA. Only patients from Cohort A (BRCA/ATM alteration positive by tissue testing) were evaluated. We compared clinical outcomes, including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) between the ctDNA subgroup and Cohort A., Results: Of the 181 (73.9%) Cohort A patients who gave consent for plasma sample ctDNA testing, 139 (76.8%) yielded a result and BRCA/ATM alterations were identified in 111 (79.9%). Of these, 73 patients received olaparib and 38 received control. Patients' baseline demographics and characteristics, and the prevalence of HRR alterations were comparable with the Cohort A intention-to-treat (ITT) population. rPFS was longer in the olaparib group versus control [median 7.4 vs. 3.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-0.53; nominal P < 0.0001], which is consistent with Cohort A ITT population (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.47)., Conclusions: When tumor tissue testing is not feasible or has failed, ctDNA testing may be a suitable alternative to identify patients with mCRPC carrying BRCA/ATM alterations who may benefit from olaparib treatment., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Aim: To evaluate the prognostic role of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) in patients with operable gastric cancer., Methods: We assessed 354 patients with operable gastric cancer from tertiary centers in Turkey. SII was calculated by following formula: [neutrophil (cells × 10 9 /L) × platelet (cells × 10 9 /L)]/lymphocyte (cells × 10 9 /L). The best cut-off value for SII was determined by using "receiver operating characteristics (ROC)" analysis. We used log-rank and Cox-regression analysis for survival analyses., Results: One hundred twenty patients were in the late recurrence group (recurrences have developed 36 months after the surgery). SII was not a prognostic factor in the early recurrence group. However, relapse-free survival (RFS) was longer in SII-low patients than SII-high patients in the late recurrence group. In multivariable analysis, SII was the only independent prognostic factor for RFS in the late recurrence group (hazard ratio (HR): 5.42, 95% CI: 1.18-24.82, p = 0.03)., Conclusion: SII was an independent prognostic factor for RFS in GC patients with late recurrence. Late recurrence risk was higher in SII-high patients than SII-low patients. Inflammation contributes to tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis. Prolonged exposure to chronic inflammation could explain the results of this study., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) is an easily accessible immune marker based on peripheral blood to estimate prognosis in patients with cancer. This study evaluates the prognostic value of PIV in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with nivolumab., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the second line and beyond were selected from the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) database. PIV was calculated using the following formula: neutrophil (10 3 /mm 3 ) x monocyte (10 3 /mm 3 ) x platelet (10 3 /mm 3 )/lymphocyte (10 3 /mm 3 )., Results: A total of 152 patients with mRCC were included in this study. According to cut-off value for PIV, 77 (50.7%) and 75 (49.3%) patients fell into PIV-low ([Formula: see text] 372) and PIV-high (> 372) groups, respectively. In multivariate analysis, PIV-high (HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.04-2.58, p = 0.033 for overall survival (OS); HR: 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.38, p = 0.042 for progression-free survival (PFS)) was independent risk factor for OS and PFS after adjusting for confounding variables, such as performance score, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score, and liver metastasis., Conclusion: This study established that pre-treatment PIV might be a prognostic biomarker in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the second line and beyond., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: To compare survival outcomes, response rates, and adverse events (AEs) in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) user and non-user patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with regorafenib., Methods: We included 272 patients with mCRC treated with regorafenib in this study. Patients were divided into two categories according to their status of PPI use. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were time to treatment failure (TTF), response rates, and safety. To exclude immortal time bias in survival analyses, we compared PPI non-user patients and all patients., Results: There were 141 and 131 patients in the PPI non-user and user groups. Baseline characteristics were similar in each group. Pantoprazole was the most used PPI. At the median 35.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 32.6-37.9) months follow-up, the median OS was similar in PPI non-user and all patients (6.9 months (95% CI: 5.3-8.5) and 7.7 months (95% CI:6.6-8.8), p = 0.913). TTF was also similar in PPI non-user and all patients (3.3 months (95% CI: 2.7-3.9) and 3.5 months (95% CI: 3.0-4.0), p = 0.661). In multivariable analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed between PPI user and non-user groups in OS and TTF (hazard ratio (HR), 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.28; p = 0.963 for OS; HR, 0.93; 0.77-1.20, p = 0.598 for TTF). The objective response rates (ORR) were similar in the PPI non-user and user groups (19.8% and 16.8%, p = 0.455). The rates of any grade AEs were also similar in each group., Conclusion: This study found no worse outcome in the combined use of PPI and regorafenib among patients with mCRC., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

This study aims to investigate the prognostic value of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII)and its impact on survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). A total of 706patients with mRCC treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)between January 2007 and June 2020 (i.e., sunitinib, pazopanib) were included in this study. SII was calculated in 621 patients with the following formula:[neutrophil (cellsx10 9 /L) x platelet (cellsx10 9 /L)] / lymphocyte (cellsx10 9 /L).All patients were classified into SII-high and SII-low groups based on the cut-off value of SII at 756, which was the median SII level of our study group. The minimal follow-up duration was 10 months in all cohorts. The median age of patients was 60 (interquartile range (IQR):53-67) years. Three out of four patients were male. The majority of patients (85.7%) had clear cell histology, and sarcomatoid differentiation was observed in 16.9% of all patients. There were 311 and 310 patients in the SII-low and SII-high groups, respectively. In general, baseline characteristics were similar in each group. However, the rate of patients treated with sunitinib (63.3% vs. 49.0%, p < 0.001) and those who underwent nephrectomy (83.6% vs. 64.2%, p < 0.001) was higher in the SII-low group than in the SII-high group. On the other hand, patients with the IMDC poorrisk (31.6% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001), those with bone (51.8% vs. 32.2%, p < 0.001) or central nervous system (12.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.026) metastasis, and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group(ECOG) 2-4 performance score (28.1% vs.17.7%, p = 0.002) were more common in the SII-high group than in the SII-low group. The median overall survival (OS) was longer in the SII-low group than in the SII-high group (34.6 months vs. 14.5 months, p < 0.001). Similarly, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the SII-low group than in the SII-high group (18.0 months vs. 7.7 months, p < 0.001).In multivariableanalysis, SII was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio (HR):1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.05-1.85, p = 0.01) and PFS (HR:1.60, 95% CI:1.24-2.05, p < 0.001).Pre-treatment level of high SII might be considered a predictor of poor prognosisin patients with mRCC treated with TKIs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Atezolizumab (ATZ) has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in previous studies of patients with metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma. However, the response rate of Atezolizumab was modest. In the current study, we evaluated the pretreatment prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed after first-line chemotherapy in the Expanded-Access Program of Atezolizumab., Patients and Methods: In this study, we present a retrospective analysis of 113 patients with urothelial cancer treated with ATZ after progression on first-line chemotherapy. Data of the patients was obtained from patient files and hospital records. Eligible patients included metastatic urothelial carcinoma patients treated with at least one course of ATZ. Univariate analysis was used to identify clinical and laboratory factors that significantly impact OS. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis if they had a statistical relationship with OS (p  < 0.1), and then included a final model of p  < 0.05., Results: The median follow-up duration was 23.5 months. Of the patients, 98 (86.7%) were male and 13.3% were female. The median age was 65 years of age (37-86). In univariate analysis, primary tumor location in the upper tract, increasing absolute neutrophil count (ANC), increasing absolute lymphocyte count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 3, liver metastases, baseline creatinine clearance less (GFR) than 60 ml/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (1 ≥), and hemoglobin levels below 10 mg/dl were all the significantly associated with OS. Three of the five adverse prognostic factors according to the Bellmunt criteria were independent of short survival: liver metastases HR 3.105; 95% CI 1.673-5.761; p < (0.001), ECOG PS (1 ≥) HR 2.184; 95% CI 1.120-4.256; p = 0.022, and Hemoglobin level below 10 mg/dl HR 2.680; 95% CI 1.558-4.608; p < (0.001). In addition, NLR > 3 hazard ratio [HR] 2.092; 95% CI 1.031-4.243; p = 0.041 and GFR less than 60 ml/min HR 1.829; 95% CI 1.1-3.041; p = 0.02, maintained a significant association with OS in multivariate analysis., Conclusions: This model confirms the Bellmunt model with the addition of NLR > 3 and GFR less than 60 ml/min and can be associated with clinical trials that use immunotherapy in patients with bladder cancer., (© 2021. Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of anemia, and to evaluate the etiology and risk factors of anemia in patients with newly diagnosed cancer., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 310 patients with newly diagnosed cancer who were referred to a university hospital in Turkey over a 6-month period and 218 age-matched healthy individuals as controls were evaluated in terms of anemia: complete blood count (CBC), ferritin, transferrin saturation (TS%), serum iron (SI), cobalamin (B12), and folate levels. Carcinoma of the breast (21.3%), lung (12.9%), and gastrointestinal tract (GIT) (35.8%) accounted for the majority of the patients, and 44.7% of the patients had metastatic disease., Results: Anemia was observed in 49.7% of patients with cancer and in 11.9% of healthy controls (p < 0.001). SI and TS% were lower in patients with cancer than in the controls (p < 0.001); however, the median serum ferritin level, which is also an acute-phase reactant, was higher in the patient group than the healthy matched controls (42.2 ng/mL and 41 ng/mL, respectively, p < 0.001). Folate and B12 deficiencies were seen more frequently in the cancer group than in the controls [6.5% and 0.9% (p < 0.001); 39.3% and 18.9% (p < 0.05), respectively]. In the cancer group, anemia was seen more frequently in the metastatic subgroup than in the non-metastatic subgroup (59.7% and 55.3%, respectively, p < 0.05). The prevalence of anemia was similar in both groups of patients with and without primary GIT cancers, as well as in patients who did and did not undergo tumor surgery (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: This study showed that, at the time a patient is diagnosed as having cancer, the patient already has a significant risk for anemia, nearly five times that of healthy people. Having metastatic disease, and having nutritional deficiencies as iron, B12, and folate were evaluated as possible risk factors for anemia in patients with newly diagnosed cancer, whereas cancer with GIT localization and previous history of tumor surgery were not.

Purpose: Despite, vaccination is a highly effective and widely recommended for prevention of certain infections, vaccination coverage is very low. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the attitudes of medical oncologists towards vaccination and to identify predictors of intention to recommend vaccination in patients with cancer., Methods: A structured questionnaire is formed to evaluate the daily practice of vaccination. Turkish medical oncologists were invited to this study via email, SMS, or phone call. Questionnaire was filled out and the data were stored in an online survey platform., Results: Two hundred seventy-three medical oncologists participated in the survey. Influenza, Pneumococcus, and hepatitis B were the most commonly recommended vaccines (87.1, 72.8, 67.0%, respectively). Patients with lung cancer, lymphoma and breast cancer were the main malignancies that medical oncologists suggest vaccination (68.1, 68.1, 24.6%, respectively). The most common times for vaccination were during remission/follow-up period (68.4%) or before beginning chemotherapy (64.1%). Only 23.4% of the physicians thought that their recommendation for vaccination was efficient and adequate. Lack of time and lack of knowledge or experience about vaccination are the most common limitations. There is a positive correlation between experience in the field and evaluating patients for vaccination (r = 0.390, p < 0.001); on the other hand, there is negative correlation between number of patients seen per day and evaluating patients for vaccination (r = -0.080, p = 0.18). Experience with autologous or allogeneic bone marrow transplant patients is related with more tendency to evaluate patients for vaccination (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Degree of experience in oncology especially in bone marrow transplant units and total number of patients seen per day are important predictors of vaccination practice in oncology. The frequency of recommendation increases with degree of experience, knowledge, and visit time per patient.

Background: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive tumor of mesothelial surfaces. Previous studies have observed an association between ABO blood groups and risk of certain malignancies, including pancreatic and gastric cancer; however, no information on any association with MM risk is available. The aim of this study was to investigate possible associations amoong MM clinicopathological features and ABO blood groups and Rh factor., Materials and Methods: In 252 patients with MM, the ABO blood group and Rh factor were examined and compared with the control group of 3,022,883 healthy volunteer blood donors of Turkish Red Crescent between 2004 and 2011. The relationship of blood groups with various clinicopathological features were also evaluated in the patient group., Results: The median age was 55 (range: 27-86) and 61.5% of patients were male. While 82.8% of patients had a history of exposure to asbestos, 60.7% of patients had a smoking history. Epithelioid (65.1%) was the most common histology and 18.7% of patients had mixed histology. Overall, the ABO blood group distribution of the 252 patients with MM was comparable with the general population. The median overall survival (OS) was 14 months (95% confidence interval, 11.3-16.6 months). The median OS for A, B, AB, and O were 11, 15, 16, and 15 months respectively (p=0.396). First line chemotherapy was administered to 118 patients. The median OS of patients on pemetrexed or gemcitabine was longer than patient who was not administered chemotherapy [17 months (95%CI, 11.7-22.2) vs. 9 months (95%CI, 6.9-11.0); p<0.001]., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that patients with MM can benefit from treatment with pemetrexed or gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin. We did not observe a statistically significant association between ABO blood group and risk of MM.

Background: An association between the ABO blood group and the risk of certain malignancies, including pancreatic and gastric cancer, has been reported previously. However, it is unclear whether this association is valid for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). In this study, ABO blood groups and the Rh factor were investigated in a series of GIST cases., Material and Methods: In 162 patients with GIST, blood group and Rh factor were examined and compared with a control group of 3,022,883 healthy volunteer blood donors of the Turkish Red Crescent between 2004 and 2011. The relationship of blood groups with tumor size, mitotic activity, and age were also evaluated., Results: Overall, the ABO blood group and Rh factor distributions of the 162 patients with GIST were similar to those of the general population. There were no significant differences between both ABO blood types and Rh factor in terms of tumor size, mitotic activity, and age., Conclusion: This is the first study reported on this issue. In our study, we didn't find any relationship between GIST and ABO blood group and Rh factor. However further studies with larger number of patients are needed to establish the role of blood groups in this population.