Germline alterations among Hispanic men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the true rate of pathogenic (P)/likely pathogenic (LP) germline alterations in Hispanic men with prostate cancer as most studies analyzing the prevalence of P/LP germline alterations were performed in a largely non-Hispanic white population (NHW). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of two separate cohorts of men with prostate cancer: (1) a multicenter cohort of 17,256 men who underwent germline testing in a CLIA-certified laboratory and (2) a single-center cohort of all men eligible for germline testing between 2018 and 2020. The proportions of P/LP alterations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were computed. Fisher's exact test was used to compare germline alteration rates for significance. A multivariate logistic regression was performed adjusting for demographic and clinical factors to examine factors associated with germline testing. RESULTS: In the multicenter cohort, the rate of P/LP germline alterations among self-reported Hispanic men was 7.1%, which was lower than self-reported NHW men (9.7% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.058), but was not statistically significant. The VUS rate was significantly higher among the Hispanic cohort (21.5% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.005). In the single-center cohort, 136 Hispanic patients were eligible for testing of which 34 underwent germline testing (26.1%, N = 34/136). Of all prostate cancer patients in the single-center cohort undergoing germline testing (n = 173), the rate of P/LP alterations in Hispanic patients was not significantly different compared to NHW patients (14.7% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.77). The rate of VUS in Hispanic patients was significantly higher than that of NHW patients (20.6% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: The P/LP germline alteration rate in our cohorts was similar between Hispanic and NHW men. The rate of VUS was significantly higher in Hispanic men, a consequence of undertesting in minority populations. These data support that Hispanic men with prostate cancer should be screened for germline testing similar to NHW men.

Neoadjuvant Sunitinib Decreases Inferior Vena Caval Thrombus Size and Is Associated With Improved Oncologic Outcomes: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed outcomes of neoadjuvant sunitinib in patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) and inferior vena caval (IVC) tumor and compared outcomes to patients who did not undergo neoadjuvant therapy before surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective comparison of RCC patients with IVC tumor who underwent neoadjuvant sunitinib before surgery versus those who did not. Response to sunitinib was defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with primary and secondary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared survival in neoadjuvant and primary surgery groups. RESULTS: Data of 53 patients were analyzed (19 neoadjuvant sunitinib, 34 primary surgery; median follow-up, 58 months). Eighteen (9 in each group, P = .143) had metastatic RCC. There was no difference in IVC tumor level between the 2 groups (P = .76). After neoadjuvant sunitinib, median primary tumor decreased size from 8.1 to 6.8 cm, and IVC tumor decreased by 1.3 cm. IVC tumor level decreased in 8 (42.1%) of 19 and was stable in 10 (52.6%) of 19; 5 (26.3%) of 19 experienced partial response. Similar proportions of patients underwent robot-assisted or minimally invasive approaches (P = .351), and no differences were noted in complications (P = .194). Multivariate analysis showed neoadjuvant sunitinib was associated with improved cancer-specific survival (odds ratio = 3.28; P = .021). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly longer median cancer-specific survival (72 vs. 38 months, P = .023) for neoadjuvant sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant sunitinib was associated with a reduction in primary tumor and thrombus size as well as improved survival. Further investigation is needed to determine the utility of neoadjuvant sunitinib in RCC with IVC tumor.

Sequencing of Sipuleucel-T and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men with Hormone-Sensitive Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Phase II Randomized Trial.

Purpose: STAND, a randomized, phase II, open-label trial (NCT01431391), assessed sequencing of sipuleucel-T (an autologous cellular immunotherapy) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) patients at high risk for metastasis.Experimental Design: Men with BRPC following prostatectomy and/or radiotherapy, a PSA doubling time ≤12 months, and no metastasis were enrolled. Patients were randomized (34/arm) to sipuleucel-T followed by ADT (started 2 weeks after sipuleucel-T completion), or ADT followed by sipuleucel-T (started 12 weeks after ADT initiation); ADT continued for 12 months in both arms. The primary endpoint was PA2024-specific T-cell response [enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT)] over time.Results: PA2024-specific ELISPOT responses over time were similar between groups, except at week 6, where responses were higher with sipuleucel-T→ADT versus ADT→sipuleucel-T (P = 0.013). PA2024-specific T-cell proliferation responses, averaged across time points, were approximately 2-fold higher with sipuleucel-T→ADT versus ADT→sipuleucel-T (P = 0.001). PA2024-specific cellular and humoral responses and prostatic acid phosphatase-specific humoral responses increased significantly versus baseline (P < 0.001) and were maintained for 24 months (both arms). Median time-to-PSA recurrence was similar between arms (21.8 vs. 22.6 months, P = 0.357). Development of a PA2024-specific humoral response correlated with prolonged time-to-PSA progression (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67; P = 0.007). Sipuleucel-T with ADT was generally well tolerated.Conclusions: Sipuleucel-T→ADT appears to induce greater antitumor immune responses than the reverse sequence. These results warrant further investigation to determine whether this sequence leads to improved clinical outcomes, as well as the independent contribution of ADT alone in terms of immune activation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(10); 2451-9. ©2016 AACR.

Phase 2 trial of dovitinib in patients with progressive FGFR3-mutated or FGFR3 wild-type advanced urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Second-line treatment options for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) are limited. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) is dysregulated in UC by activating mutations or protein overexpression in non-mutant tumours. In this study, the efficacy, pharmacodynamics and safety of dovitinib-a broad-targeted inhibitor of tyrosine kinases, including FGFR3-were evaluated in patients with previously treated advanced UC with and without FGFR3 mutations. METHODS: Forty-four adults with advanced UC who had progressed after one to three platinum-based and/or combination chemotherapy regimens were classified as having mutant (FGFR3(MUT); n=12), wild-type (FGFR3(WT); n=31), or unknown (n=1) FGFR3 status. Patients received 500 mg dovitinib once daily on a 5-days-on/2-days-off schedule. The primary end-point of this two-stage study was the investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Most of the patients were men (75%) and over half of the patients were aged ⩾65 years (61%). All patients had received ⩾1 prior antineoplastic therapy for UC. The study was terminated at the end of stage 1, when it was determined by investigator review that the ORR of both the FGFR3(MUT) (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0-26.5) and FGFR3(WT) (3.2%; 95% CI, 0.1-16.7) groups did not meet the criteria to continue to stage 2. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events, suspected to be study-drug related, included thrombocytopenia (9%), fatigue (9%), and asthenia (9%). CONCLUSION: Although generally well tolerated, dovitinib has very limited single-agent activity in patients with previously treated advanced UC, regardless of FGFR3 mutation status. clinicaltrials.gov NCT00790426.

What is the Incidence of Kidney Stones after Chemotherapy in Patients with Lymphoproliferative or Myeloproliferative Disorders?

Introduction This study describes the incidence and risk factors of de novo nephrolithiasis among patients with lymphoproliferative or myeloproliferative diseases who have undergone chemotherapy. Materials and Methods From 2001 to 2011, patients with lymphoproliferative or myeloproliferative disorders treated with chemotherapy were retrospectively identified. The incidence of image proven nephrolithiasis after chemotherapy was determined. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded. Patients with a history of nephrolithiasis prior to chemotherapy were excluded. The primary outcome was incidence of nephrolithiasis, and secondary outcomes were risk factors predictive of de novo stone. Comparative statistics were used to compare demographic and disease specific variables for patients who developed de novo stones versus those who did not. Results A total of 1,316 patients were identified and the incidence of de novo nephrolithiasis was 5.5% (72/1316; symptomatic stones 1.8% 24/1316). Among patients with nephrolithiasis, 72.2% had lymphoproliferative disorders, 27.8% had myeloproliferative disorders, and 25% utilized allopurinol. The median urinary pH was 5.5, and the mean serum uric acid, calcium, potassium and phosphorus levels were 7.5, 9.6, 4.3, and 3.8 mg/dL, respectively. In univariate analysis, mean uric acid (p=0.013), calcium (p<0.001)), and potassium (p=0.039) levels were higher in stone formers. Diabetes mellitus (p<0.001), hypertension (p=0.003), and hyperlipidemia (p<0.001) were more common in stone formers. In multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus, hyperuricemia, and hypercalcemia predicted stone. Conclusions We report the incidence of de novo nephrolithiasis in patients who have undergone chemotherapy. Diabetes mellitus, hyperuricemia, and hypercalcemia are patient-specific risk factors that increase the odds of developing an upper tract stone following chemotherapy. .

What is the incidence of kidney stones after chemotherapy in patients with lymphoproliferative or myeloproliferative disorders?

INTRODUCTION: This study describes the incidence and risk factors of de novo nephrolithiasis among patients with lymphoproliferative or myeloproliferative diseases who have undergone chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2011, patients with lymphoproliferative or myeloproliferative disorders treated with chemotherapy were retrospectively identified. The incidence of image proven nephrolithiasis after chemotherapy was determined. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded. Patients with a history of nephrolithiasis prior to chemotherapy were excluded. The primary outcome was incidence of nephrolithiasis, and secondary outcomes were risk factors predictive of de novo stone. Comparative statistics were used to compare demographic and disease specific variables for patients who developed de novo stones versus those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 1,316 patients were identified and the incidence of de novo nephrolithiasis was 5.5% (72/1316; symptomatic stones 1.8% 24/1316). Among patients with nephrolithiasis, 72.2% had lymphoproliferative disorders, 27.8% had myeloproliferative disorders, and 25% utilized allopurinol. The median urinary pH was 5.5, and the mean serum uric acid, calcium, potassium and phosphorus levels were 7.5, 9.6, 4.3, and 3.8 mg/dL, respectively. In univariate analysis, mean uric acid (p=0.013), calcium (p<0.001)), and potassium (p=0.039) levels were higher in stone formers. Diabetes mellitus (p<0.001), hypertension (p=0.003), and hyperlipidemia (p<0.001) were more common in stone formers. In multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus, hyperuricemia, and hypercalcemia predicted stone. CONCLUSIONS: We report the incidence of de novo nephrolithiasis in patients who have undergone chemotherapy. Diabetes mellitus, hyperuricemia, and hypercalcemia are patient-specific risk factors that increase the odds of developing an upper tract stone following chemotherapy.

Palliative irradiation of the spleen.

We analyzed the efficacy of splenic irradiation in a population of patients with hematologic diseases. The records of the Radiation Oncology Division, Naval Medical Center San Diego were retrospectively reviewed for all patients treated with splenic irradiation (SI) between January 1, 1990 and March 1, 2001. The charts of 17 patients were identified: 5 patients had chronic myelogenous leukemia, 4 had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 4 had idiopathic myelofibrosis, 2 had polycythemia vera, and 1 patient each had idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and acute myelogenous leukemia. Patient ages ranged from 37 to 88 years. Sixteen of 17 suffered from symptomatic splenomegaly. Twenty-six courses of splenic irradiation were delivered to these 17 patients. Treatment courses generally consisted of two fractions of 50 cGy in the first week, two fractions of 75 cGy the second week, and two fractions of 100 cGy the third week. Blood counts were checked prior to each treatment. Seven of the 17 patients died 1 month or less after SI due to the terminal nature of their disease. Twenty-two of 25 treatment courses for splenomegaly resulted in decreased pain and symptoms. Five patients required two treatment courses for splenomegaly, and one patient required five treatment courses. Three of four patients treated for thrombocytopenia demonstrated improvement, but only one was evaluable for more than 2 weeks due to disease-related mortality. Three of five patients treated for leukocytosis had significant improvement. In general, patients suffered few significant complications from this palliative intervention. Splenic irradiation can effectively palliate symptomatic splenomegaly in patients for whom splenectomy is not an option. Retreatment is possible. Splenic irradiation is less effective in the treatment of thrombocytopenia or leukocytosis.