Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes Before and After Access to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study From 2004 to 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is a lethal disease with limited treatment options. We aimed to compare the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with mUC who were treated before and after the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study from 2004 to 2021. Access to ICIs began in December 2014. We analyzed differences in clinical characteristics and survival outcomes, such as overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and restricted mean survival time (RMST). RESULTS: A total of 206 patients were included. The median follow-up was 48.6 months. Ninety and 116 patients were treated during the pre-ICIs and the post-ICIs eras, respectively. We found high treatment attrition rates, with no differences in the number of patients who received second-line (48%) and third-line (26%) therapies between the two eras. In the second-line, ICIs became the predominant therapy (58%), leading to a 30% reduction in the utilisation of platinum-based ChT and non-platinum ChT. Innovative approaches including ICIs in the first-line treatment (18%) and targeted therapies in the third-line setting (34%) were observed. We found no differences in the median OS, 2-year OS, or 24-month RMST between the two periods. CONCLUSION: ICIs have emerged as a transformative treatment option, reshaping the treatment landscape. Nevertheless, substantial attrition rates from first-line to subsequent lines of systemic therapies might impede the potential impact of ICIs on long-term survival outcomes across the entire population.

Cumulative incidences of hypogonadism, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia in patients with stage I seminoma treated with a risk-adapted strategy: a Spanish single-centre retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: To describe the incidences of hypogonadism, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia in patients with stage 1 seminoma (S1S) testicular cancer (TC) treated with a risk-adapted strategy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Active surveillance (AS), carboplatin one cycle, and carboplatin two cycles were offered according to risk factors. Cumulative incidences and relapse-free survival (RFS) were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 145 patients, 8 (5.4%) were excluded due to bilateral TC or hypogonadism at diagnosis. Median follow-up time was 8.2 years. Eighty-four, 30, and 33 patients were treated with AS, carboplatin one cycle, and carboplatin two cycles, respectively. In the overall population, the 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidences were 1.6% and 5.3% for hypogonadism; 2.0% and 8.6% for hypertension; and 12.4% and 25.1% for dyslipidaemia. No statistically significant differences were found in the incidences among the three adjuvant strategies. Five-year and 10-year RFS were 85.9% and 83.3% for AS; 92.4% and 84.0% for carboplatin one cycle; and 96.7% at both times for carboplatin two cycles. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically differences in cumulative incidences of hypogonadism, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia in S1S patients treated with a risk-adapted strategy.

Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Mutations to Predict Olaparib Plus Bevacizumab Efficacy in the First-Line Ovarian Cancer PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 Trial.

PURPOSE: The PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial of maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab for newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over placebo plus bevacizumab, particularly in patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors. We explored whether mutations in non-BRCA1 or BRCA2 homologous recombination repair (non-BRCA HRRm) genes predicted benefit from olaparib plus bevacizumab in PAOLA-1. METHODS: Eight hundred and six patients were randomly assigned (2:1). Tumors were analyzed using the Myriad MyChoice HRD Plus assay to assess non-BRCA HRRm and HRD status; HRD was based on a genomic instability score (GIS) of ≥ 42. In this exploratory analysis, PFS was assessed in patients harboring deleterious mutations using six non-BRCA HRR gene panels, three devised for this analysis and three previously published. RESULTS: The non-BRCA HRRm prevalence ranged from 30 of 806 (3.7%) to 79 of 806 (9.8%) depending on the gene panel used, whereas 152 of 806 (18.9%) had non-BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation HRD-positive tumors. The majority of tumors harboring non-BRCA HRRm had a low median GIS; however, a GIS of > 42 was observed for tumors with mutations in five HRR genes (BLM, BRIP1, RAD51C, PALB2, and RAD51D). Rates of gene-specific biallelic loss were variable (0% to 100%) in non-BRCA HRRm tumors relative to BRCA1-mutated (99%) or BRCA2-mutated (86%) tumors. Across all gene panels tested, hazard ratios for PFS (95% CI) ranged from 0.92 (0.51 to 1.73) to 1.83 (0.76 to 5.43). CONCLUSION: Acknowledging limitations of small subgroup sizes, non-BRCA HRRm gene panels were not predictive of PFS benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in PAOLA-1, irrespective of the gene panel tested. Current gene panels exploring HRRm should not be considered a substitute for HRD determined by BRCA mutation status and genomic instability testing in first-line high-grade ovarian cancer.

Nano-Based Approved Pharmaceuticals for Cancer Treatment: Present and Future Challenges.

Cancer is one of the main causes of death worldwide. To date, and despite the advances in conventional treatment options, therapy in cancer is still far from optimal due to the non-specific systemic biodistribution of antitumor agents. The inadequate drug concentrations at the tumor site led to an increased incidence of multiple drug resistance and the appearance of many severe undesirable side effects. Nanotechnology, through the development of nanoscale-based pharmaceuticals, has emerged to provide new and innovative drugs to overcome these limitations. In this review, we provide an overview of the approved nanomedicine for cancer treatment and the rationale behind their designs and applications. We also highlight the new approaches that are currently under investigation and the perspectives and challenges for nanopharmaceuticals, focusing on the tumor microenvironment and tumor disseminate cells as the most attractive and effective strategies for cancer treatments.

Management of advanced ovarian cancer in Spain: an expert Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: To determine the state of current practice and to reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of advanced ovarian cancer using a Delphi survey with a group of Spanish gynecologists and medical oncologists specially dedicated to gynecological tumors. METHODS: The questionnaire was developed by the byline authors. All questions but one were answered using a 9-item Likert-like scale with three types of answers: frequency, relevance and agreement. We performed two rounds between December 2018 and July 2019. A consensus was considered reached when at least 75% of the answers were located within three consecutive points of the Likert scale. RESULTS: In the first round, 32 oncologists and gynecologists were invited to participate, and 31 (96.9%) completed the online questionnaire. In the second round, 27 (87.1%) completed the online questionnaire. The results for the questions on first-line management of advanced disease, treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might be the best option, and treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might not be the best option are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows a snapshot of current recommendations by this selected group of physicians. Although the majority of the agreements and recommendations are aligned with the recently published ESMO-ESGO consensus, there are some discrepancies that can be explained by differences in the interpretation of certain clinical trials, reimbursement or accessibility issues.

Phase II clinical trial of PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) in urothelial carcinoma patients progressing after first-line platinum-based regimen.

PURPOSE: This exploratory phase II clinical trial evaluated the antitumor activity, safety profile and pharmacokinetics of PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) 3 mg/m(2) 1 h every 3-week intravenous infusion in patients with advanced and/or metastatic urothelial carcinoma progressing after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: The primary efficacy end point was the disease control rate (DCR), defined as the percentage of patients with confirmed objective response or progression-free at 3 months, according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. RESULTS: In a first stage (n = 19 patients evaluable for efficacy), only one patient achieved DCR (stable disease as best response and progression-free survival of 3.1 months). According to the 2-stage design used, the primary efficacy objective was unmet, and therefore, the trial was finalized without opening the second stage. The most common adverse events related to PM00104 were fatigue, anorexia, nausea, troponin I increase and neutropenia, which were transient and manageable with dose modifications or administration delays. Mean PK results (Cmax = 48.57 µg/l and area under the curve (AUC) = 154.97 h µg/l) were similar to those observed in a previous phase I trial evaluating the same dose and schedule. Few troponin I concentrations were higher than 0.10 ng/ml, and none of them were related to parameters of PM00104 exposure such as AUC or Cmax. CONCLUSIONS: No recommendation is given for further evaluation of PM00104 as single-agent treatment of patients with pretreated advanced and/or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. No new safety signals were observed.