Emerging clinical phenotype of bone metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC): Association of early osseous metastases (EOM) and outcomes

e17007

Background: Outcomes of patients (pts) with mUC with EOM have not thoroughly been described in the age of immuno-oncology. We hypothesized that EOM is associated with worse outcomes when compared to pts with non-osseous metastases (NOM). Methods: We used a multi-institutional database of pts with mUC who received systemic treatment (trt) between March 2005 and August 2019, to assess survival and palliative outcomes of pts with EOM vs NOM at the time of metastatic diagnosis (met dx). Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests were performed. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression analysis was performed. Results: We identified 270 pts, 72% men, mean age 67 ± 11 years, 28% never smokers. At met dx, 27% (n = 72) had ≥ 1 EOM; these pts were more likely to have de novo metastases vs. those with recurrent metastases (42% vs 19%, p < 0.001). Pts with EOM were more likely to have a change or stop in 1st line trt due to clinical progression (30.6% vs 15.7%, p = 0.006), and received fewer total lines of systemic trt, median of 1.0 (1.0-5.0) vs. 2.0 (1.0-8.0), p = 0.05. Pts with EOM had shorter median overall survival (OS) vs. those with NOM, (6.1 vs 13.7 months, p < .0001), HR = 2.79 (95% CI:1.95-3.97, p < .0001). Median OS was shorter for pts with EOM who received 1st line immune checkpoint inhibitor (n = 14) vs platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 43), (1.6 vs 9.1 months, p = 0.003). Pts with EOM received higher opioid analgesic doses at the first and last oncology outpatient visits compared to pts with NOM with mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose of 60 ± 91 vs 28 ± 65 at first visit, p = 0.004, and 171 ± 214 vs. 94 ± 229 at last visit, p < 0.001. Conclusions: The presence of EOM in mUC is associated with worse outcomes vs. pts with NOM. Pts with EOM may benefit from 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy vs. checkpoint immunotherapy. Furthermore, pts with EOM experience more pain than pts with NOM and may benefit from early engagement with palliative care. Pts with EOM represent a population with a highly unmet need for systemic, targeted and/or radiation interventions. Molecular subtypes may further define these pts and analysis is planned. We encourage ongoing clinical trials to report outcomes in pts with EOM. A consensus on reporting of non-measurable disease is also needed. [Table: see text]

Association of early bone metastases and outcomes of the bone predominant metastatic urothelial carcinoma (BP mUC) phenotype

e16016

Background: Prior analyses demonstrated worse outcomes with the BP mUC clinical phenotype. UC molecular subtypes that may correlate with the BP phenotype have been defined, however molecular subtyping is not a readily available standard practice. We hypothesized that BP mUC has worse prognosis vs. non-BP (NBP) mUC and evaluated patient (pt) characteristics associated with the mUC subtype, responses and outcomes. Methods: We searched the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify pts with mUC who received systemic therapy in the metastatic setting. Demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment (trt), response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS ) from start of first line trt. Imaging was reviewed to identify NBP or BP disease. Logistic regression, Cox proportional-hazards and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed. Results: 149 mUC pts were identified (64% male, 68% smokers ), median age at 1st line trt was 68 years. 70% had de-novo mets, 46% to lung and 27% to liver. 22% of pts were BP, of these, 36% were de-novo metastatic. In non- de-novo metastatic pts (70% of pts), first progression of disease to bone was associated with development of the BP phenotype (OR = 30.46, 95% CI 6.37 to 145.61; p < 0.0001). BP pts had higher rate of death (HR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.58, p = 0.0004), shorter PFS from 1st line trt, (11.7 vs 14.9 weeks, p = 0.032) as well as shorter OS from 1st line trt (24.6 vs 56.6 weeks, p = 0.002) compared to NBP pts. There was no difference in PFS between BP and NBP groups for pts treated with 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy (11.8 vs 18.3 weeks, p = 0.091) or for BP pts treated with 1st line immunotherapy vs platinum-based chemotherapy (11.71 vs 11.86 weeks, p = 0.135). Conclusions: Early bone metastases are associated with the development of the BP metastatic phenotype. BP pts have worse PFS and OS from 1st line trt compared to NBP pts. PFS remains poor when BP pts are treated with either platinum-based chemotherapy or immunotherapy in the first line setting. Imaging to determine the presence of bone metastases may routinely be pursued and careful attention paid on follow up imaging. Clinical trials and prospective registries focusing on efficacy endpoints for BP mUC are needed.

Topical diclofenac does not affect the antiplatelet properties of aspirin as compared to the intermediate effects of oral diclofenac: A prospective, randomized, complete crossover study

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) adversely interact with aspirin, diminishing its antiplatelet effect and potentially placing patients at an increased risk for recurrent thrombotic events. This crossover study aimed to determine whether the topical NSAID diclofenac epolamine 1.3% patch or oral diclofenac 50 mg interfered with the antiplatelet effects of aspirin 325 mg. Twelve healthy men and women aged 18-50 were included. Participants were randomized into 5 treatment arms: aspirin, diclofenac potassium 50 mg, diclofenac patch, diclofenac potassium plus ASA 325 mg, and diclofenac patch plus aspirin. Platelet responsiveness was determined using whole-blood impedance aggregation (WBA) to collagen 1 μg/mL and arachidonic acid (AA) 0.5 mM and was sampled every 2 hours. No significant difference in platelet function was observed following the diclofenac patch and aspirin vs aspirin alone. Oral diclofenac produced a mixed effect with significant reduction in platelet inhibition at hour 2 and hour 8 following aspirin administration. Topical diclofenac does not significantly interfere with the antiplatelet effects of aspirin and may be a safer alternative to the oral formulation.