Global real-world experiences with pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: the ARON-2 study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors.

RESULTS

In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Use of concomitant proton pump inhibitors, statins or metformin in patients treated with pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: data from the ARON-2 retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Concomitant medications may potentially affect the outcome of cancer patients. In this sub-analysis of the ARON-2 real-world study (NCT05290038), we aimed to assess the impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), statins, or metformin on outcome of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) receiving second-line pembrolizumab.

METHODS

We collected data from the hospital medical records of patients with mUC treated with pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at 87 institutions from 22 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 802 patients were eligible for this retrospective study; the median follow-up time was 15.3 months. PPI users compared to non-users showed inferior PFS (4.5 vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.002) and OS (8.7 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Concomitant PPI use remained a significant predictor of PFS and OS after multivariate Cox analysis. The use of statins or metformin was not associated with response or survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results suggest a significant prognostic impact of concomitant PPI use in mUC patients receiving pembrolizumab in the real-world context. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TWITTER SUMMARY

Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

"Non-metastatic, Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Diagnostic and Treatment Recommendations by an Expert Panel from Brazil"

INTRODUCTION

Non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is an important clinical stage of prostate cancer, prior to morbidity and mortality from clinical metastases. In particular, the introduction of novel androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) has changed the therapeutic landscape in nmCRPC. Given recent developments in this field, we update our recommendations for the management of nmCRPC.

METHODS

A panel of 51 invited medical oncologists and urologists convened in May of 2021 with the aim of discussing and providing recommendations regarding the most relevant issues concerning staging methods, antineoplastic therapy, osteoclast-targeted therapy, and patient follow-up in nmCRPC. Panel members considered the available evidence and their practical experience to address the 73 multiple-choice questions presented.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and findings include the reliance on prostate-specific antigen doubling time for treatment decisions, the absence of a clear preference between conventional and novel (i.e., positron-emission tomography-based) imaging techniques, the increasing role of ARSis in various settings, the general view that ARSis have similar efficacy. Panelists highlighted the slight preference for darolutamide, when safety is of greater concern, and a continued need to develop high-level evidence to guide the intensity of follow-up in this subset of prostate cancer.

DISCUSSION

Despite the limitations associated with a consensus panel, the topics addressed are relevant in current practice, and the recommendations can help practicing clinicians to provide state-of-the-art treatment to patients with nmCRPC in Brazil and other countries with similar healthcare settings.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results from APCCC 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

Characteristics of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer in Brazil: preliminary results of the prospective cohort EVITA study (EVA001/LACOG 0215)

OBJECTIVES

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Epidemiological and quality of life (QoL) data in patients with cervical cancer from low- and middle-income countries are scarce. We aimed to describe sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics and quality of life of patients with cervical cancer at diagnosis in Brazil.

METHODS

EVITA is a prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with cervical cancer from May 2016 to December 2017, stages I-IVB, from 16 Brazilian sites representing the five Brazilian regions. At baseline, medical evaluation was performed and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CX24/C30 questionnaires were administered.

RESULTS

A total of 631 patients were included. Mean±SD age was 49.3±13.9 years; skin color was non-white in 65.3%, and 68.0% had ≤8 years of formal education. In total, 85.1% of patients had a Pap smear. The main reasons reported by patients for not having a Pap smear were: lack of interest (46.9%), shame or embarrassment (19.7%), lack of knowledge (19.7%), and difficulty with access (9.1%). Most patients were diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease (FIGO clinical stage II-IV in 81.8%- stage II in 35.2%, stage III in 36.1%, and stage IV in 10.5%). Patients with clinical stage III-IV had worse physical functioning and role functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical cancer in Brazil is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Most patients have low formal education and are unemployed. Lack of interest was identified as a main reason for not having a screening test, and limited access was reported as a reason by <10% of the patients. Awareness campaigns must be a governmental priority, specially focused on the needy population, along with wide access to treatment.

EPID-07. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SURVIVAL OF PATIENTS WITH DIFFUSE GLIOMA IN BRAZIL: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A MULTICENTRIC RETROSPECTIVE STUDY - LACOG 0619

INTRODUCTION

In Brazil, most of the 9,196 deaths due to brain cancers in 2017 were gliomas. There is a dearth of epidemiological data on diffuse glioma in Brazil.

METHODS

LACOG 0619 is a multicentric retrospective cohort study, which included patients from nine tertiary oncology centers. Patients aged ≥18 years with histologically proven astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, oligoastrocytoma or glioblastoma diagnosed from June 2010 to June 2019 were included. The study protocol was approved by each Institutional Review Board.

RESULTS

642 patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 51.0 (19-91) years. Most patients were male (n=364, 56.8%), 175 (27.3%) had ECOG 0-1, and 480 (74.8%) had private healthcare insurance. Neurological symptoms were present in 568 (88.5%) patients at diagnosis, and 263 (41.0%) had a history of seizure before surgery. Regarding histology, 361 (56.2%) had glioblastoma, 162 (25.2%) had astrocytoma, 90 (14.0%) had oligodendroglioma, and 23 (3.6%) had glioma NOS. Gross total resection was performed in 168 (26.2%), subtotal resection in 292 (45.5%), biopsy in 108 (16.8%), conventional radiotherapy in 380 (59.2%), and hypofractionation in 44 (6.9%) patients. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy was administered to 370 (57.6%) patients, mostly with temozolamide (n=362, 97.8%). Furthermore, 434 (67.7%) patients received maintenance chemotherapy, 398 with temozolamide (&lt; 6 cycles in 112 [28.4%], 6 cycles in 75 [18.8%], and &gt;6 cycles in 214 [3.8%]). Median follow-up was 29 months (26-33). Median OS according to histology was: 35 months (95%CI 26-46) for glioblastoma, 91 months (95%CI 35-NR) for glioma NOS, and not reached for astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma. Median OS by number of temozolamide maintenance cycles was 18 months (95%CI 15-24) for &lt; 6 cycles and not reached for 6 cycles or more.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first multicentric cohort evaluating Brazilian patients with diffuse glioma, providing important data on epidemiology, treatment patterns, and survival in the country.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Clinical Research in Latin America (LACOG 0420)

PURPOSE

COVID-19 has affected cancer care worldwide. Clinical trials are an important alternative for the treatment of oncologic patients, especially in Latin America, where trials can be the only opportunity for some of them to access novel and, sometimes, standard treatments.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study, in which a 22-question survey regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology clinical trials was sent to 350 representatives of research programs in selected Latin American institutions, members of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group.

RESULTS

There were 90 research centers participating in the survey, with 70 of them from Brazil. The majority were partly private or fully private (n = 77; 85.6%) and had confirmed COVID-19 cases at the institution (n = 57; 63.3%). Accruals were suspended at least for some studies in 80% (n = 72) of the responses, mostly because of sponsors' decision. Clinical trials' routine was affected by medical visits cancelation, reduction of patients' attendance, reduction of other specialties' availability, and/or alterations on follow-up processes. Formal COVID-19 mitigation policies were adopted in 96.7% of the centers, including remote monitoring and remote site initiation visits, telemedicine visits, reduction of research team workdays or home office, special consent procedures, shipment of oral drugs directly to patients' home, and increase in outpatient diagnostic studies. Importantly, some of these changes were suggested to be part of future oncology clinical trials' routine, particularly the ones regarding remote methods, such as telemedicine.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this was the first survey to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on Latin American oncology clinical trials. The results are consistent with surveys from other world regions. These findings may endorse improvements in clinical trials' processes and management in the postpandemic period.

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities

BACKGROUND

Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided.

OBJECTIVE

To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time.

CONCLUSIONS

The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Value of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) in the diagnosis of lung and mediastinal lesions

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value of EBUS-TBNA in the diagnosis of lung and mediastinal lesions.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study that included 52 patients during a 2-year period (2016 to 2018) who underwent EBUS-TBNA.

RESULTS

Among the 52 individuals submitted to the procedure, 22 (42.31%) patients were diagnosed with locally advanced lung cancer (N2 or N3 lymph node involvement). EBUS-TBNA confirmed the diagnosis of metastases from other extrathoracic tumors in the mediastinum or lung in 5 patients (9.61%), confirmed small cell lung cancer in 3 patients (5.76%), mediastinal sarcoidosis in 1 patient (1.92%), and reactive mediastinal lymph node in 8 patients (15.38%); insufficient results were found for 3 patients (5.76%). Based on these results, EBUS-TBNA avoided further subsequent surgical procedures in 39 of 52 patients (75%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 86%, 100%, 100%, 77%, and 90%, respectively. No major complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

EBUS-TBNA is a safe, effective, and valuable method. This technique can significantly reduce the rate of subsequent surgical procedures required for the diagnosis of lung and mediastinal lesions.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017

BACKGROUND

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics.

OBJECTIVE

To present the report of APCCC 2017.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients: Translation from sequence data into clinical practice

133

Background: A considerable number of patients with mBC progress after exhausting all approved standard therapies but maintain an adequate performance status and could be candidates for further treatment. We aim at reviewing our experience with the use of a NGS platform in refractory mBC and its clinical utility. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed demographics, NGS results, and the suggested therapies received by patients undergoing NGS (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA): exonic sequencing of 315 genes and selective intronic sequencing from 28 genes for refractory mBC. Co-primary endpoints were the percentage of patients with targeted therapy options uncovered by mutational profiling and the percentage of them who received genotype-directed therapy. Results: Samples from 20 patients were tested. Histologic subtype consisted of triple negative (50%), HER 2 +, hormonal receptor [HR] - 15%, HR + and HER 2 - (35%). A targetable genomic alteration was identified in 14 (70%) patients, most frequently in TP53 (11 [55%]), PIK3CA (8 [40%]), FGFR1 (4 [20%]), CCND1 (3 [15%]), PTEN (3[15%]) and BRCA2 (2[10%]). Therapy could be personalized in 9 (45%) of 14 patients. Of the 9 patients who were received targeted therapy, 7 (77%) had an objective response and had stable disease for more than 3 months. Conclusions: Mutational profiling using a targeted NGS panel identified potentially actionable alterations in the majority of advanced breast cancer patients. The assay provided clinical benefit in 35% of the patients.

The many faces of fungal disease of the paranasal sinuses: CT and MRI findings

The prevalence of fungal rhinosinusitis has increased worldwide over the last two decades. Fungal rhinosinusitis includes a wide variety of infections, from relatively innocent to rapidly fatal processes. Fungal infection may be one of the most challenging forms of sinonasal pathology to manage, especially the invasive forms, which have high mortality rates. Therefore, it is essential to correctly diagnose and classify fungal disease of paranasal sinuses in order to accurately predict prognosis and implement effective therapy. This essay describes the different manifestations of fungal sinusitis on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to optimize differentiation, and includes correlation with the pathologic classifications.

Cervical ribs: identification on MRI and clinical relevance

To determine the prevalence of cervical ribs on cervical spine MRI and clinical relevance, we reviewed 2500 studies for cervical ribs and compression of neurovascular structures and compared to CT, when available. Brachial plexus or subclavian artery contact by cervical rib was identified on MRI and/or CT in 12 cases with diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome in one. Cervical ribs were identified on 1.2% (25/2083) of examinations, lower than on CT (2%), but MRI may offer equivalent anatomic explanation for patient symptoms.

Organizing hematoma mimicking brain tumor

A 64-year-old man was referred to our hospital with progressive loss of function in his right upper and lower extremities. Unenhanced computed tomographic showed a high-density nodular lesion in the left basal ganglion with surrounding hypoattenuation. Brain magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a predominantly cystic mass with multiple internal septa and an eccentric solid component showing enhancement. Histological examination revealed organizing blood clot and piloid gliosis. This unusual appearance of a mass-like organizing blood clot should be considered in the differential diagnosis when an encapsulated cystic mass with nodular component following the signal characteristics of old blood on MRI is encountered.

Cervical ribs: a common variant overlooked in CT imaging

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Cervical ribs are congenital variants that are known to cause TOS or brachial plexopathy in up to 10% of the affected individuals. We investigated how often cervical ribs are present on cervical spine CT scans to determine the incidence in humans and the percentage of reported cervical ribs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cervical spine CT scans and the reports of 3404 consecutive adult patients were retrospectively reviewed to determine the presence of cervical ribs and whether they had been reported.

RESULTS

Cervical ribs were found in 2.0% (67/3404) of the population. Of the 67 patients with cervical ribs, 27 (40.3%) had bilateral ribs. The prevalence of cervical ribs in women was twice that in men, 2.8% (39/1414) versus 1.4% (28/1990). Although African Americans accounted for 50.1% (1706/3404) and whites, 41.2% (1402/3404) of the patient population, African Americans were 70.1% (47/67) of patients with cervical ribs, whereas whites were 26.9% (18/67). Radiologists commented on 25.5% (24/94) of the cervical ribs in 25.4% (27/67) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of cervical ribs in the human population has been a source of uncertainty due to the degree of difficulty that comes in detecting this often subtle congenital variation. In our sample, the prevalence was 2.0% of patients. Our study determined that cervical ribs are underreported in patients undergoing cervical spine CT. Given the potential clinical implications of these anatomic variants, neuroradiologists must be more meticulous in identifying cervical ribs when reviewing cervical spine CT scans.

Intra-abdominal fibrosis after systemic and intraperitoneal therapy containing fluoropyrimidines

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal fibrosis has been described as secondary to intraperitoneal (IP) administration of several chemotherapeutic agents, including carboplatin, mitoxantrone, and the combination of 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. The IP administration of floxuridine (FUDR) is an effective and minimally toxic treatment for patients with metastases to the peritoneum. An increasing number of patients with colorectal, gastric, or ovarian carcinoma are treated with IP chemotherapy.

METHODS

The authors report two patients with metastatic colon carcinoma who experienced severe intra-abdominal fibrosis presenting as an intra-abdominal mass mimicking recurrence in one patient and diffuse encasement of the bowel in the other, after the administration of IP FUDR and leucovorin.

RESULTS

Two patients with Stage III colon adenocarcinoma received postoperative adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and levamisole. They subsequently presented with a rise in carcinoembryonic antigen level and isolated liver metastasis. They underwent hepatic lobectomy with postoperative intra-arterial hepatic FUDR and systemic 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. They each had an intra-abdominal recurrence, which was resected and treated with postoperative IP FUDR and leucovorin. They then presented with a diffuse pattern of IP fibrosis with no tumor identified.

CONCLUSIONS

IP FUDR and leucovorin therapy can be associated with diffuse IP fibrosis, which in this study caused an intra-abdominal mass that was indistinguishable from recurrent malignancy in one patient and encasement of the bowel in the other.

[Contamination of enteral diet solutions in nosocomial environment]

The gastrointestinal tract is comparatively resistant to food-born germs, but recent studies suggest that nosocomial infections may be triggered by this route. In a study with industrialized diets, prepared with aseptic technique and stored up to 24 hours, aerobic and anaerobic contaminants were searched. Samples were taken after 0.8 and 24 hours, whereas half of these last two analyses were carried out in material left at room temperature, and the other half in refrigerated diets. Initial examination revealed 50% of positive cultures, but part of this was due to non-pathogenic Bacillus germs. After 8 and 24 hours 90% of the samples grew organisms, again with a large proportion of Bacillus, but also with several Gram-negative bacteria, as well as rare Gram-positives. Diarrhea and fever were not registered in patients submitted to enteral nutrition during the study period, nor could any episodes of bacteremia or septic shock be attributed to contaminated feeding material. This lack of clinical consequences of the reported bacterial isolations is not unexpected, and suggests that low concentrations of microorganisms were probably present in the preparations, below a critical level. Nevertheless, attention will be required in the future for better quality control of enteral nutrition mixtures, specially when resistant strains of Gram-negative species are identified, and also in the management of debilitated or immunologically compromised hosts.