1
|
Marcq G, Kassouf W, Roumiguié M, Pradere B, Mertens LS, Albisinni S, Cimadamore A, Yuen-Chun Teoh J, Moschini M, Laukhtina E, Mari A, Soria F, Gallioli A, Del Giudice F, d'Andrea D, Krajewski W, Beauval JB, Xylinas E, Pouessel D, Sargos P, Ploussard G. Oncological outcomes of patients with node positive disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A multicenter observational study of the EAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) urothelial carcinoma working group. Actas Urol Esp 2025; 49:501701. [PMID: 39938643 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2025.501701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2024] [Accepted: 09/20/2024] [Indexed: 02/14/2025]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Until recently there was no recommended adjuvant therapy for patients with lymph nodes metastasis (ypN+) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The aim of the study was to describe the oncological outcomes of ypN+ patients following NAC and RC for MIBC. METHODS This collaborative retrospective study included 195 patients with ypN+ disease after NAC followed by RC and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection for MIBC between 2000 and 2019 in seven centers. Patients' demographics, clinical and pathological features were collected. Survival analyses were carried out with Kaplan-Meier estimates and a Cox model was generated. RESULTS A total of 120 patients (62%) were pN1, 51 pN2 (26%) and 24 pN3 (12%). Adjuvant radiation therapy was performed in 18 (9%), adjuvant chemotherapy in 40 (21%) and the remaining 137 (70%) patients were observed. The median follow-up time was 51 months (95%CI 44-62). Median times for recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival (OS) were 18 months (95%CI 16-21), 47 months (95%CI 31-70) and 28 months (95%CI 22-34) respectively. On multivariable analysis, female gender (HR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.002-2.21, p = 0.049) and positive surgical margins (HR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.06-2.38, p = 0.026) were the only independent predictor of OS. The type of adjuvant therapy did not impact OS (adjuvant chemotherapy, p = 0.44; adjuvant radiotherapy p = 0.40). CONCLUSION MIBC patients with residual node positive disease following NAC and RC have poor survival outcomes. Females and patients with positive margin status at RC carry a poorer prognosis. These results may be beneficial for clinical trial design.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Marcq
- División de Urología, Centro de Salud de la Universidad de McGill, Universidad de McGill, Montreal, Canada; Departamento de Urología, Hospital Claude Huriez, CHU Lille, Lille, France; University Lille, CNRS, Inserm, CHU Lille, Instituto Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277 - CANTHER - Heterogeneidad Plasticidad y Resistencia del Cáncer a las Terapias, Lille, France.
| | - W Kassouf
- División de Urología, Centro de Salud de la Universidad de McGill, Universidad de McGill, Montreal, Canada
| | - M Roumiguié
- Departamento de Urología, CHU-IUC, Tolouse, France
| | - B Pradere
- Departamento de Urología UROSUD, Hospital La Croix du Sud, Quint Fonsegrives, France; Departamento de Urología, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Universidad Médica de Viena, Viena, Austria
| | - L S Mertens
- Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Albisinni
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Erasme, Universidad Libre de Bruselas, Bruselas, Belgium; Unidad de Urología, Departamento de Ciencias Quirúrgicas, Hospital Universitario Tor Vergata, Universidad de Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
| | - A Cimadamore
- Sección de Anatomía Patológica, Universidad Politécnica de la Región de Marcas, Ancona, Italy
| | - J Yuen-Chun Teoh
- Centro de Urología S.H. Ho, Departamento de Cirugía, Universidad China de Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - M Moschini
- Departamento de Urología y División de Oncología Experimental, Instituto de Investigación Urológica, IRCCS Instituto Científico San Raffaele, Milán, Italy
| | - E Laukhtina
- Departamento de Urología, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Universidad Médica de Viena, Viena, Austria; Instituto de Urología y Salud Reproductiva, Universidad Sechenov, Moscú, Russia
| | - A Mari
- Departamento de Medicina Experimental y Clínica, Universidad de Florencia - Unidad de Urología Oncológica y Andrológica Mínimamente Invasiva, Hospital Careggi, Florencia, Italy
| | - F Soria
- División de Urología, Departamento de Ciencias Quirúrgicas, AOU Ciudad de la Salud y de la Ciencia, Escuela de Medicina de Torino, Turín, Italy
| | - A Gallioli
- Departamento de Urología, Fundación Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F Del Giudice
- Departamento de Ciencias Materno-Infantiles y Urológicas, Universidad de Roma Sapienza, Hospital Policlínico Umberto I, Roma, Italy
| | - D d'Andrea
- Departamento de Urología, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Universidad Médica de Viena, Viena, Austria
| | - W Krajewski
- Departamento de Urología Robótica y Mínimamente Invasiva, Centro Universitario de Excelencia en Urología, Universidad Médica de Breslavia, Breslavia, Poland
| | - J B Beauval
- Departamento de Urología UROSUD, Hospital La Croix du Sud, Quint Fonsegrives, France
| | - E Xylinas
- Departamento de Urología, Hospital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Hospital de París-Asistencia Pública, Universidad de París, París, France
| | - D Pouessel
- Departamento de Oncología Médica, Instituto Claudius Regaud, IUCT (Instituto Universitario del Cáncer de Toulouse) - Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - P Sargos
- Departamento de Radioterapia, Instituto Bergonié, Burdeos, France
| | - G Ploussard
- Departamento de Urología UROSUD, Hospital La Croix du Sud, Quint Fonsegrives, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kaczmarek K, Małkiewicz B, Skonieczna-Żydecka K, Lemiński A. Influence of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Survival Outcomes of Radical Cystectomy in Pathologically Proven Positive and Negative Lymph Nodes. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4901. [PMID: 37835595 PMCID: PMC10571771 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15194901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2023] [Revised: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 10/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to radical cystectomy (RC) typically show better survival outcomes than those undergoing immediate surgery for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, most studies have not considered the lymph node (LN) status when evaluating NAC's survival benefits. This study sought to delineate the impact of NAC on patients based on their pathologically determined LN status at the time of RC. We examined data from 1395 patients treated at two departments between 1991 and 2022. Of them, 481 had positive LNs. A comparison of overall survival (OS) outcomes revealed that patients without LN involvement ((y)pN0) benefited from NAC with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.692 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.524-0.915). In contrast, patients with (y)pN+ showed no improvement with NAC (HR 0.927, 95%CI 0.713-1.205). Notably, patients treated with NAC for stage
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krystian Kaczmarek
- Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Bartosz Małkiewicz
- University Center of Excellence in Urology, Department of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Urology, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Karolina Skonieczna-Żydecka
- Department of Biochemical Sciences, Pomeranian Medical University, Władysława Broniewskiego 24, 71-460 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Artur Lemiński
- Department of Urology and Urological Oncology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstańców Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
- Department of Biochemical Sciences, Pomeranian Medical University, Władysława Broniewskiego 24, 71-460 Szczecin, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zalay O, Yan M, Sigurdson S, Malone S, Vera-Badillo FE, Mahmud A. Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Curr Oncol 2022; 30:19-36. [PMID: 36661651 PMCID: PMC9858283 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30010002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Revised: 12/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare form of malignancy comprising only 5% of urothelial cancers. The mainstay of treatment is radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with bladder cuff excision. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is often used in locally advanced disease. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), however, remains controversial. To further explore the potential role of adjuvant RT, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 1990 to present. METHODS AND MATERIALS We identified 810 candidate articles from database searches, of which 67 studies underwent full-text review, with final inclusion of 20 eligible studies. Among the included studies, there were no randomized controlled trials and a single prospective trial, with the remainder being retrospective series. We performed quantitative synthesis of the results by calculating the pooled odds ratios (OR) for the primary outcome of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and secondary outcomes of overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and distant recurrence (DR). RESULTS Adjuvant RT, which was mostly prescribed for locally advanced or margin-positive disease following RNU, significantly reduced locoregional recurrence risk OR 0.43 (95% CI: 0.23-0.70), and the effect remained significant even following subgroup analysis to account for adjuvant systemic therapy. The effect of adjuvant RT on 3-year OS, 5-year CSS and DR was non-significant. However, 5-year OS was unfavourable in the adjuvant RT arm, but study heterogeneity was high, and analysis of small-study effects and subgroups suggested bias in reporting of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant RT in the setting of locally advanced UTUC improves locoregional control following definitive surgery, but does not appear to improve OS. Higher-quality studies, ideally randomized controlled trials, are needed to further quantify its benefit in this setting, and to explore multi-modal treatments that include systemic agents given concomitantly or sequentially with RT, which may offer an OS benefit in addition to the locoregional control benefit of RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osbert Zalay
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Michael Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada
| | - Samantha Sigurdson
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Shawn Malone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Francisco Emilio Vera-Badillo
- Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen’s Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, ON K7L 2V5, Canada
| | - Aamer Mahmud
- Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ernandez J, Kaul S, Fleishman A, Korets R, Chang P, Wagner A, Kim S, Bellmunt J, Kaplan I, Olumi AF, Gershman B. Adjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Radiotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for Locally Advanced Bladder Cancer after Radical Cystectomy. Bladder Cancer 2022; 8:405-417. [PMID: 38994178 PMCID: PMC11181795 DOI: 10.3233/blc-220031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Survival with locally advanced bladder cancer (LABC) following radical cystectomy (RC) remains poor. Although adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is standard of care, one small, randomized trial has suggested a potential survival benefit when combined with post-operative radiotherapy (PORT). OBJECTIVE We examined the association of AC + PORT with overall survival (OS) in patients with LABC after RC. METHODS Using a prior phase 2 trial to inform design, we conducted observational analyses to emulate a hypothetical target trial of patients aged 18-79 years with pT3-4 Nany M0 or pTany N1-3 M0 urothelial bladder carcinoma following RC who were treated with AC (multiagent chemotherapy within 3 months of RC) with or without PORT (≥45 Gy to the pelvis) from 2006-2015 in the NCDB. Patients who received preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy were excluded. The associations of treatment with OS were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS 1,684 patients were included, with 66 receiving AC + PORT and 1,618 AC alone. Compared to patients treated with AC alone, those treated with AC + PORT were more likely to have pT4 disease (52% vs 26%; p < 0.01), positive surgical margins (44% vs 17%; p < 0.01), and be treated at a non-academic facility (75% vs 53%; p < 0.01). Crude 5-year OS was 19% for AC + PORT versus 36% for AC alone (p = 0.01). Adjusted 5-year OS was 33% for AC + PORT versus 36% for AC alone (p = 0.49). After adjusting for baseline characteristics including pathologic features, AC + PORT was not associated with improved OS compared to AC alone (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.82-1.51). CONCLUSIONS Although infrequently utilized, the addition of radiotherapy to AC is not associated with improved OS in LABC. These results highlight the need for prospective trials to better define the potential benefits from PORT with regard to symptomatic progression and oncologic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sumedh Kaul
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Aaron Fleishman
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ruslan Korets
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Peter Chang
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andrew Wagner
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Simon Kim
- Division of Urology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Joaquim Bellmunt
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Irving Kaplan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Aria F Olumi
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Boris Gershman
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mehrnoush V, Brennan L, Ismail A, Zakaria A, Elmansy H, Shahrour W, Prowse O, Kotb A. Radical cystectomy for bladder urothelial carcinoma with aggressive variant histology. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022; 94:291-294. [DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2022.3.291] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2022] [Accepted: 08/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to report our experience in managing bladder cancer in patients with variant pathology. Methods: Retrospective data collection for all patients managed by radical cystectomy over the last 3 years for a variant pathol-ogy was completed. We specifically included micropapillary and nested variants. Results: Ten patients were identified, with eight having micropapillary carcinoma (MPC) and two having nested vari-ants. Nine patients were male. The median age was 75. The two patients with nested variant were 56 and 62 years old, respec-tively, whereas all patients with MPC were over the age of 70. Upon cystectomy of all micropapillary cases, three patients(37.5%) had positive lymph node invasion and the final patholo-gy was T2 (two patients), T3 (two patients), and T4 (four patients). Barring a grade III complication Clavien-Dindo classi-fication due to wound dehiscence that necessitated secondary surgical closure, there were no specific perioperative complica-tions. Given the urethral invasion, cystourethrectomy was per-formed on the female patient. Within a median 13-month fol-low-up, three patients developed local recurrence, including two urethral and one new lateral pelvic mass. Conclusions: Considering the muscle invasive nature of micropapillary and nested bladder cancer, aggressive surgical management should not be postponed. Moreover, due to notable prevalence of concurrent and/or recurrent urethral involvement, initial urethrectomy or early and frequent postoperative ure-throscopy should be provided. Patients with variant histology bladder cancer may benefit from early radical cystectomy when compared to bladder sparing protocols and prostate sparing cystectomy treatment options.
Collapse
|
6
|
Lewis GD, Guzman AK, Haque W, McLellan BN, Teh BS. Comparison of Survival Outcomes With/Without Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Desmoplastic Melanoma. Dermatol Surg 2021; 47:1333-1336. [PMID: 34537788 DOI: 10.1097/dss.0000000000003177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Desmoplastic melanoma (DM) is a rare variant of cutaneous melanoma with a high rate of local recurrence. Recent studies have indicated a potential benefit in local control with the addition of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). OBJECTIVE This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of adjuvant RT for patients with DM. MATERIALS AND METHODS The National Cancer Database was queried (2004-2015) for patients with newly diagnosed, nonmetastatic DM. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the adjuvant therapy they received: RT or observation. Statistics included multivariable logistic regression to determine factors predictive of receiving adjuvant RT, Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate overall survival (OS), and Cox proportional hazards modeling to determine variables associated with OS. RESULTS There was no difference in median OS between patients treated with RT when compared with patients observed (111.4 months vs 133.9 months, p = .1312). On multivariable analysis, older age, T stage ≥2, N stage ≥1, and no receipt of immunotherapy were associated with worse OS. CONCLUSION In this large study evaluating efficacy of adjuvant RT in DM, no overall survival benefit was observed among patients receiving adjuvant RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary D Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
| | - Anthony K Guzman
- Division of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - Waqar Haque
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Beth N McLellan
- Division of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - Bin S Teh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Press RH, Shelton JW, Zhang C, Dang Q, Tian S, Shu T, Seldon CS, Hasan S, Jani AB, Zhou J, McDonald MW. Bone Marrow Suppression during Postoperative Radiation for Bladder Cancer and Comparative Benefit of Proton Therapy—Phase 2 Trial Secondary Analysis. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:1-10. [PMID: 35127970 PMCID: PMC8768898 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-21-00003.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose For patients with high-risk bladder cancer (pT3+ or N+), local regional failure remains a challenge after chemotherapy and cystectomy. An ongoing prospective phase 2 trial (NCT01954173) is examining the role of postoperative photon radiation therapy for high-risk patients using volumetric modulated arc therapy. Proton beam therapy (PBT) may be beneficial in this setting to reduce hematologic toxicity. We evaluated for dosimetric relationships with pelvic bone marrow (PBM) and changes in hematologic counts before and after pelvic radiation therapy and explored the potential of PBT treatment plans to achieve reductions in PBM dose. Materials and Methods All enrolled patients were retrospectively analyzed after pelvic radiation per protocol with 50.4 to 55.8 Gy in 28 to 31 fractions. Comparative PBT plans were generated using pencil-beam scanning and a 3-beam multifield optimization technique. Changes in hematologic nadirs were assessed using paired t test. Correlation of mean nadirs and relative PBM dose levels were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient (CC). Results Eighteen patients with a median age of 70 were analyzed. Mean cell count values after radiation therapy decreased compared with preradiation therapy values for white blood cells (WBCs), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), absolute lymphocyte count (all P < .001), and platelets (P = .03). Increased mean PBM dose was associated with lower nadirs in WBC (Pearson CC −0.593, P = .02), ANC (Pearson CC −0.597, P = .02), and hemoglobin (Pearson CC −0.506, P = .046), whereas the PBM V30 to V40 correlated with lower WBC (Pearson CC −0.512 to −0.618, P < .05), and V20 to V30 correlated with lower ANC (Pearson CC −0.569 to −0.598, P < .04). Comparative proton therapy plans decreased the mean PBM dose from 26.5 Gy to 16.1 Gy (P < .001) and had significant reductions in the volume of PBM receiving doses from 5 to 40 Gy (P < .001). Conclusion Increased PBM mean dose and V20 to V40 were associated with lower hematologic nadirs. PBT plans reduced PBM dose and may be a valuable strategy to reduce the risk of hematologic toxicity in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joseph W. Shelton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Chao Zhang
- Biostatistics Core of Department Pediatrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Quang Dang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Sibo Tian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Timothy Shu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Crystal S. Seldon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | | | - Ashesh B. Jani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jun Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mark W. McDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lewis GD, Haque W, Farach A, Hatch SS, Butler EB, Niravath PA, Schwartz MR, Bonefas E, Teh BS. The impact of HER2-directed targeted therapy on HER2-positive DCIS of the breast. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 26:179-187. [PMID: 34211767 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2021.0026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Background In invasive breast cancer, HER2 is a well-established negative prognostic factor. However, its significance on the prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is unclear. As a result, the impact of HER2-directed therapy on HER2-positive DCIS is unknown and is currently the subject of ongoing clinical trials. In this study, we aim to determine the possible impact of HER 2-directed targeted therapy on survival outcomes for HER2-positive DCIS patients. Materials and methods The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was used to retrieve patients with biopsy-proven DCIS diagnosed from 2004-2015. Patients were divided into two groups based on the adjuvant therapy they received: systemic HER2-directed targeted therapy or no systemic therapy. Statistics included multivariable logistic regression to determine factors predictive of receiving systemic therapy, Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate overall survival (OS), and Cox proportional hazards modeling to determine variables associated with OS. Results Altogether, 1927 patients met inclusion criteria; 430 (22.3%) received HER2-directed targeted therapy; 1497 (77.7%) did not. Patients who received HER2-directed targeted therapy had a higher 5-year OS compared to patients that did not (97.7% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.043). This survival benefit remained on multivariable analysis. Factors associated with worse OS on multivariable analysis included Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Score ≥ 2 and no receipt of hormonal therapy. Conclusion In this large study evaluating HER2-positive DCIS patients, the receipt of HER2-directed targeted therapy was associated with an improvement in OS. The results of currently ongoing clinical trials are needed to confirm this finding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary D Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
| | - Waqar Haque
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
| | - Andrew Farach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
| | - Sandra S Hatch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States
| | - E Brian Butler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
| | - Polly A Niravath
- Department of Clinical Medicine in Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
| | - Mary R Schwartz
- Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
| | | | - Bin S Teh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Amin S, Baine M, Meza J, Lin C. The impact of treatment facility type on the survival of brain metastases patients regardless of the primary cancer type. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:387. [PMID: 33836694 PMCID: PMC8033704 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08129-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer patients with brain metastases (BMs) require multidisciplinary care, and treatment facility may play a role. This study aimed to investigate the impact of receiving treatment at academic centers on the overall survival (OS) of cancer patients with brain metastases (BMs) regardless of the primary cancer site. METHODS This retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) included patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer, small-cell lung cancer, other types of lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, colorectal cancer, and kidney cancer and had brain metastases at the time of diagnosis. The data were extracted from the de-identified file of the NCDB, a joint program of the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society. The Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for age at diagnosis, race, sex, place of living, income, education, primary tumor type, year of diagnosis, chemotherapy, radiation therapy (RT), and surgery of the primary cancer site was used to determine treatment facility-associated hazard ratios (HR) for survival. Overall survival was the primary outcome, which was analyzed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. RESULTS A total of 93,633 patients were analyzed, among whom 31,579/93,633 (34.09%) were treated at academic centers. Based on the log-rank analysis, patients who received treatment at an academic facility had significantly improved OS (median OS: 6.18, CI: 6.05-6.31 vs. 4.57, CI: 4.50-4.63 months; p < 0.001) compared to patients who were treated at non-academic facilities. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, receiving treatment at an academic facility was associated with significantly improved OS (HR: 0.85, CI: 0.84-0.87; p < 0.001) compared to non-academic facility. CONCLUSIONS In this extensive analysis of the NCDB, receiving treatment at academic centers was associated with significantly improved OS compared to treatment at non-academic centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saber Amin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986861 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6861, USA
| | - Michael Baine
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986861 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6861, USA
| | - Jane Meza
- Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA
| | - Chi Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 986861 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6861, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Murthy V, Bakshi G, Manjali JJ, Prakash G, Pal M, Joshi A, Dholakia K, Bhattacharjee A, Talole S, Puppalwar A, Srinivasan S, Panigrahi G, Salunkhe R, Menon S, Noronha V, Prabhash K, Krishnatry R. Locoregional recurrence after cystectomy in muscle invasive bladder cancer: Implications for adjuvant radiotherapy. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:496.e9-496.e15. [PMID: 33573998 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2020] [Revised: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 01/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We report the patterns of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), and propose a risk stratification to predict LRR for optimizing the indication for adjuvant radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study included patients of urothelial MIBC who underwent radical cystectomy with standard perioperative chemotherapy between 2013 and 2019. Recurrences were classified into local and/or cystectomy bed, regional, systemic, or mixed. For risk stratification modelling, T stage (T2, T3, T4), N stage (N0, N1/2, N3) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI positive or negative) were given differential weightage for each patient. The cohort was divided into low risk (LR), intermediate risk (IR) and high risk (HR) groups based on the cumulative score. RESULTS Of the 317 patients screened, 188 were eligible for the study. Seventy patients (37.2%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) while 128 patients (68.1%) had T3/4 disease and 66 patients (35.1%) had N+ disease. Of the 55 patients (29%) who had a recurrence, 31 (16%) patients had a component of LRR (4% cystectomy bed, 11.5% regional 0.5% locoregional). The median time to LRR was 8.2 (IQR 3.3-18.8) months. The LR, IR and HR groups for LRR based on T, N and LVI had a cumulative incidence of 7.1%, 21.6%, and 35% LRR, respectively. The HR group was defined as T3, N3, LVI positive; T4 N1/2, LVI positive; and T4, N3, any LVI. The odds ratio for LRR was 3.37 (95% CI 1.16-9.73, P = 0.02) and 5.27 (95% CI 1.87-14.84, P = 0.002) for IR and HR respectively, with LR as reference. CONCLUSION LRR is a significant problem post radical cystectomy with a cumulative incidence of 35% in the HR group. The proposed risk stratification model in our study can guide in tailoring adjuvant radiotherapy in MIBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India.
| | - Ganesh Bakshi
- Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Jifmi Jose Manjali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Gagan Prakash
- Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Mahendra Pal
- Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Amit Joshi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Kunal Dholakia
- Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Atanu Bhattacharjee
- Department of Biostatistics, Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Sanjay Talole
- Department of Biostatistics, Centre for Cancer Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Abhinav Puppalwar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Shashank Srinivasan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Gitanjali Panigrahi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India
| | - Rohan Salunkhe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Santosh Menon
- Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Vanita Noronha
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Kumar Prabhash
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| | - Rahul Krishnatry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre (TMH/ACTREC), Mumbai, India; Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Krebs M, Sokolakis I, Seiler R, Daneshmand S, Grivas P, Gakis G. Adjuvant Treatment of Residual Disease Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Radical Cystectomy for Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Bladder Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.3233/blc-200341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has shown overall survival benefit for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). In contrast, there is limited data for adjuvant treatment options in patients with residual muscle invasive disease after NAC followed by radical cystectomy (RC). OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of studies examining adjuvant treatment options for patients with residual MIBC at RC despite NAC. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed database and Clinicaltrials.gov (end point August 2019) for publications and registered trials combining NAC, RC, and adjuvant treatment options. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 659 articles and registered trials were further analyzed. Finally, 10 studies and 7 registered clinical trials met inclusion criteria. While 5 publications did not further characterize NAC and adjuvant regimens, the remaining 5 studies reported mainly platinum-based regimens. Altogether, the selected studies showed conflicting results regarding the potential role of adjuvant treatment strategies in the setting of residual disease after NAC and RC. CONCLUSION: Although there is an urgent need for adjuvant treatment options for patients with MIBC after NAC and residual muscle invasive disease at RC, there has been very limited evidence available. Inclusion of such patients into ongoing adjuvant clinical trials is urgently needed; active surveillance is strongly recommended in the absence of trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Markus Krebs
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Ioannis Sokolakis
- Department of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany
| | - Roland Seiler
- Department of Urology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Siamak Daneshmand
- Department of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Petros Grivas
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, et alWitjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A. EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort †: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees. Eur Urol 2020; 77:223-250. [PMID: 31753752 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035] [Show More Authors] [Citation(s) in RCA: 134] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. SETTING Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. PATIENT SUMMARY This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Alfred Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Marek Babjuk
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Joaquim Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - H Maxim Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Theo M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicholas James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Juan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Tom Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London, UK; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Maria J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Theo Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evanguelos Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Neeraj Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Tom Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Aristotle Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Alison Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - Peter C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada
| | - Bernard H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michel Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble - Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - Joost L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Iris Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Max Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Richard Cathomas
- Departement Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - Arturo Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Ananya Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Eva Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon hospital, HUEP, Paris, France; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Simon Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Stephane Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France
| | - Berardino De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Willem De Blok
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Valerie Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Jurgen J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Georgios Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Bogdan Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | | | - Shaista Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Arndt Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Dickon Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Virginia Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Harry Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Peter Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - Jorge Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Rob Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Ashish M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Anne E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Susanne Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Sylvain Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - Pedro C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - Annemarie Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Vibeke Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Anja Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Yohann Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Richard Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - Hugh Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | | | | | - James N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Andrea Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Yann Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - Jorg R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Susanne Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Wim J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - Helle Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manish I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Bradley R Pieters
- Department Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karin Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Mesut Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Margitta Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jonathan Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Michael Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Florian Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - Jonathan E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Morgan Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - Carl Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Belgium
| | - Antti Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Finland
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - Shomik Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Amir Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå university, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Robert J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Anita Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Arnulf Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - George N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Bertrand Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Susanne Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Riccardo Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Mihai D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
| | - Erik Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Antoni Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Spain
| | - Franklin A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System New York City, New York, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Andrew Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Richard Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Alan Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Horwich A, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, DeBlok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Carmen Mir M, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, et alHorwich A, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, DeBlok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Carmen Mir M, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Vahr Lauridsen S, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Vives Rivera FA, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Witjes JA. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†. Ann Oncol 2019; 30:1697-1727. [PMID: 31740927 PMCID: PMC7360152 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz296] [Show More Authors] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Horwich
- Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Emeritus Professor, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - M Babjuk
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - J Bellmunt
- IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - H M Bruins
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - T M De Reijke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M De Santis
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - S Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Oncology and Haematology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - N James
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
| | - S Maclennan
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - T Powles
- The Royal Free NHS Trust, London; Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - M J Ribal
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S F Shariat
- Depatment of Urology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - T Van Der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Xylinas
- Department of Urology, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris; Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - N Agarwal
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (NCI-CCC), Salt Lake City, USA
| | - T Arends
- Urology Department, Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A Bamias
- 2nd Propaedeutic Dept of Internal Medicine, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - A Birtle
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; Rosemere Cancer Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals, Preston, UK
| | - P C Black
- Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - B H Bochner
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - M Bolla
- Emeritus Professor of Radiation Oncology, Grenoble - Alpes University, Grenoble, France
| | - J L Boormans
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - A Briganti
- Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Milan; Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - I Brummelhuis
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - M Burger
- Department of Urology, Caritas-St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - D Castellano
- Medical Oncology Department, 12 de Octubre University Hospital (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - R Cathomas
- Department Innere Medizin, Abteilung Onkologie und Hämatologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - A Chiti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - A Choudhury
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - E Compérat
- Department of Pathology, Tenon Hospital, HUEP, Paris; Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - S Crabb
- Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - S Culine
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris
| | - B De Bari
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire "Jean Minjoz" of Besançon, INSERM UMR 1098, Besançon, France; Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - W DeBlok
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P J L De Visschere
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Genitourinary Radiology and Mammography, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent
| | - K Decaestecker
- Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - K Dimitropoulos
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - J L Dominguez-Escrig
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - V Fonteyne
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - J J Futterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - G Gakis
- Department of Urology and Paediatric Urology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Julius-Maximillians University, Würzburg, Germany
| | - B Geavlete
- Department of Urology, Saint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
| | - P Gontero
- Division of Urology, Molinette Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - B Grubmüller
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Hafeez
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - D E Hansel
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego Pathology, La Jolla, USA
| | - A Hartmann
- Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - D Hayne
- Department of Urology, UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - A M Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - V Hernandez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación de Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - H Herr
- Urology Service, Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - K Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - P Hoskin
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, London, UK
| | - J Huguet
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - B A Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan; Division of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R Jones
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - A M Kamat
- Department of Urology - Division of Surgery, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - V Khoo
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London; Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A E Kiltie
- CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Krege
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - S Ladoire
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - P C Lara
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Roque, Canarias; Universidad Fernando Pessoa, Canarias, Spain
| | - A Leliveld
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - V Løgager
- Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - A Lorch
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Y Loriot
- Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - R Meijer
- UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, MS Oncologic Urology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M Carmen Mir
- Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - M Moschini
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland
| | - H Mostafid
- Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - A-C Müller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany
| | - C R Müller
- Cancer Treatment Centre, Sorlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - J N'Dow
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - A Necchi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Y Neuzillet
- Department of Urology, Hospital Foch, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Suresnes, France
| | - J R Oddens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - S Osanto
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
| | - W J G Oyen
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan; Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - L Pacheco-Figueiredo
- Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto; Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
| | - H Pappot
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M I Patel
- Department of Urology, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - B R Pieters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
| | - K Plass
- EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - M Remzi
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - M Retz
- Department of Urology, Rechts der Isar Medical Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - J Richenberg
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - M Rink
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
| | - F Roghmann
- Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
| | - J E Rosenberg
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA
| | - M Rouprêt
- Department of Urology, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris
| | - O Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France
| | - C Salembier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Europe Hospitals Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Salminen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Turku, Turku, Finland
| | - P Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - S Sengupta
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Sherif
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - R J Smeenk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A Smits
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - A Stenzl
- Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - G N Thalmann
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland
| | - B Tombal
- Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium
| | - B Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA
| | - S Vahr Lauridsen
- Department of Urology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - R Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | - H Van Poppel
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M D Vartolomei
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - E Veskimäe
- Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - A Vilaseca
- Uro-Oncology Unit, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F A Vives Rivera
- Clinica HematoOncologica Bonadona Prevenir, Universidad Metropolitana, Clinica Club de Leones, Barranquilla, Colombia
| | - T Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - P Wiklund
- Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, USA; Department of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - A Williams
- Department of Urology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - R Zigeuner
- Department of Urology, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - J A Witjes
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lewis GD, Xing Y, Haque W, Patel T, Schwartz M, Chen A, Farach A, Hatch SS, Butler EB, Chang J, Teh BS. Prognosis of lymphotropic invasive micropapillary breast carcinoma analyzed by using data from the National Cancer Database. Cancer Commun (Lond) 2019; 39:60. [PMID: 31639071 PMCID: PMC6805396 DOI: 10.1186/s40880-019-0406-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2019] [Accepted: 10/09/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) is an uncommon subtype of breast cancer. Previous studies of this subtype demonstrated a higher propensity for lymph node metastases as compared with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). The purpose of the present study was to determine the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and propensity for lymph node metastasis of patients with IMPC of the breast recorded in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Records of patients with IMPC diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were retrieved from the NCDB. Log-rank test was performed to evaluate associations of clinical characteristics with overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine variables associated with OS. Results Overall, 2660 patients with IMPC met the selection criteria; the 5-year OS rate was 87.5% and 24.9% of patients had nodal involvement at presentation. Patients with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes had shorter OS than node-negative patients, whereas patients with 1–3 positive nodes had similar OS to node-negative patients. Age < 65 years, receipt of radiotherapy, and estrogen receptor positivity were also associated with prolonged OS. The benefit of radiotherapy was limited to IMPC patients undergoing lumpectomy; there was no benefit for the patients undergoing mastectomy (regardless of nodal positivity/negativity). Conclusions Favorable prognostic factors of IMPC patients included age < 65 years, < 4 positive lymph nodes, receipt of radiotherapy, and estrogen receptor positivity. The results presented herein suggest a survival benefit associated with radiotherapy in IMPC treatment, though this may be limited to the patients treated with lumpectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary D Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, 72205, USA
| | - Yan Xing
- Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Waqar Haque
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Tejal Patel
- Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Mary Schwartz
- Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Albert Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Andrew Farach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Sandra S Hatch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA
| | - E Brian Butler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jenny Chang
- Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Bin S Teh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Iwata T, Kimura S, Abufaraj M, Janisch F, Karakiewicz PI, Seebacher V, Rouprêt M, Nasu Y, Shariat SF. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery for upper and lower urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review. Urol Oncol 2019; 37:659-671. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Revised: 05/23/2019] [Accepted: 05/29/2019] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
|
16
|
Immortal Time Bias in National Cancer Database Studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 106:5-12. [PMID: 31404580 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.07.056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2019] [Revised: 07/17/2019] [Accepted: 07/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE In studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapies, immortal time bias (ITB) can affect the results by incorrectly reporting a survival advantage. It does so by including all deceased patients who may have been planned to receive adjuvant therapy within the observation cohort. Given the increase in National Cancer Database (NCDB) analyses evaluating postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) as an adjuvant therapy, we sought to examine how often such studies accounted and adjusted for ITB. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic review was undertaken to search MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2014 until May 2019 for NCDB studies evaluating PORT. After appropriate exclusion criteria were applied, 60 peer-reviewed manuscripts in which PORT was compared with postoperative observation or maintenance therapy were reviewed. The manuscripts were reviewed to evaluate whether ITB was accounted for, the method with which it was adjusted for, impact factor, year of publication, and whether PORT was beneficial. RESULTS Of the 60 publications reviewed, 23 studies (38.3%) did not include an adjustment for ITB. Most studies that did adjust for ITB employed a single landmark (LM) time (n = 31), 4 used a sequential landmark analyses, and 2 used a time-dependent Cox model. In 23 of 31 studies (74.2%) that did adjust for ITB via a single LM time, the rationale behind why the specified LM time was chosen was not clearly explained. There was no relationship between adjusting for ITB and year of publication (P = .074) or whether the study was published in a high-impact journal (P = .55). CONCLUSIONS Studies assessing adjuvant radiation therapy by analyzing the NCDB are susceptible to ITB, which overestimates the effect size of adjuvant therapies and can provide misleading results. Adjusting for this bias is essential for accurate data representation and to better quantify the impact of adjuvant therapies such as PORT.
Collapse
|
17
|
Lewis GD, Xing Y, Haque W, Patel T, Schwartz MR, Chen AC, Farach A, Hatch SS, Butler EB, Chang JC, Teh BS. The impact of molecular status on survival outcomes for invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Breast J 2019; 25:1171-1176. [PMID: 31321854 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2018] [Revised: 01/31/2019] [Accepted: 02/05/2019] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) is an uncommon variant of breast cancer. Previous studies demonstrated this subtype is often hormone receptor (HR)-positive, resulting in survival outcomes similar to invasive ductal carcinoma. However, many of these studies were conducted prior to HER2 testing availability. We aim to determine the impact of molecular marker status (including HER2 status) on IMPC survival outcomes. The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was used to retrieve patients with biopsy-proven IMPC from 2007 to 2012. Only patients with known HR and HER2 status were included. Cox multivariate regression was used to determine prognostic factors. In total, 865 patients were included; median follow-up was 2.5 years. Overall, 651 patients (75.3%) had HR + HER2- disease, 128 (14.8%) had HR + HER2+ disease, 41 (4.7%) had HR-HER2 + disease, and 45 (5.2%) had triple negative disease. Patients with triple negative disease were more likely to have poorly differentiated histology (66.7%), lymphovascular invasion (73.3%), stage 3 disease (37.8%), undergone mastectomy (68.9%), and positive surgical margins (15.6%). On Cox multivariate regression, those with triple negative disease had worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 7.28, P < 0.001). Other adverse prognostic factors included African-American descent (HR 2.24, P = 0.018), comorbidity score of 1 (HR 2.50, P = 0.011), comorbidity score ≥2 (HR 3.27, P = 0.06), and ≥3 positive lymph nodes (HR 3.23, P = 0.007). Similar to invasive ductal carcinoma, triple negative disease in IMPC results in worse survival outcomes. This is the largest and first study to characterize molecular status (including HER2 status) in patients with IMPC and its impact on survival outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary D Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Yan Xing
- Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Waqar Haque
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Tejal Patel
- Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Mary R Schwartz
- Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Albert C Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Andrew Farach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Sandra S Hatch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas
| | - E Brian Butler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Jenny C Chang
- Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Bin S Teh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Short-term Mortality Associated with Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2019; 17:e1069-e1079. [PMID: 31331865 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.06.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2019] [Revised: 06/22/2019] [Accepted: 06/26/2019] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) may be managed with radical cystectomy (RC) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Because patient selection for RC is important to avoid treatment-related mortality, this study addressed a knowledge gap by quantifying short-term mortality with both approaches, as well as predictors thereof. MATERIALS AND METHODS The National Cancer Database was queried (2004-2014) for clinically staged T2-4aN0M0 MIBC that received either CRT or RC. Statistics included cumulative incidence comparisons of 30- and 90-day mortality between patients treated with either CRT or RC and Cox regression to evaluate predictors thereof. RESULTS Of 16,658 patients, 15,208 (91.3%) underwent RC and 1450 (8.7%) CRT. Crude rates of post-treatment mortality at 30 days were 2.7% versus 0.6% (P < .001) and at 90 days were 7.5% versus 4.5% (P = .017) for patients treated with RC and CRT, respectively. When stratifying by age, worse 30- and 90-day mortality with RC was observed for patients aged ≥ 76 years. CONCLUSIONS This study describes 30- and 90-day mortality following RC versus CRT. Both approaches yield statistically similar treatment-related mortality rates in patients ≤ 75 years of age; however, worse post-treatment mortality was observed with use of RC in patients ≥ 76 years of age. These results may be utilized to better inform shared decision-making between patients and providers when weighing both RC and CRT for MIBC.
Collapse
|
19
|
Lewis GD, Haque W, Butler EB, Teh BS. Survival Outcomes and Patterns of Management for Anal Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26:1351-1357. [DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07202-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|