Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy and Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Limited high-quality studies have compared robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) vs open retropubic radical prostatectomy. We sought to compare their postoperative outcomes in a randomized setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single center, 354 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were assessed for eligibility; 342 were randomized (1:1). The primary outcome was 90-day complication rates. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed over 18 months, and oncological outcomes, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and additional treatment over 36 months. RESULTS: From 2014 to 18, 327 patients underwent surgery (retropubic radical prostatectomy = 156, RALP = 171). Complications occurred in 27 (17.3%) vs 19 (11.1%; P = .107). Patients undergoing RALP experienced lower median bleeding (250.0 vs 719.5 mL; P < .001) and shorter hospitalization time. Urinary EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) median scores were better for RALP over 18 months, with higher continence rate at 3 months (80.5% vs 64.7%; P = .002), 6 months (90.1% vs 81.6%; P = .036) and 18 months (95.4% vs 78.8%; P < .001). Sexual EPIC and Sexual Health Inventory for Men median scores were higher with RALP up to 12 months, while the potency rate was superior at 3 months (23.9% vs 5.3%; P = .001) and 6 months (30.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001). Quality of life over the 18 months and oncological outcomes over 36 months were not significantly different between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Complications at 90 days were similar. RALP showed superior sexual outcomes at 1 year, improved urinary outcomes at 18 months, and comparable oncological outcomes at 36 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Analysis of Robot-Assisted Surgery; NCT02292914. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02292914?cond=NCT02292914&draw=2&rank=1.

Cardiovascular and Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Receiving Intensified Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Several phase II trials have investigated neoadjuvant novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) in prostate cancer (PC) patients. However, data regarding complications of intense hormone therapy and surgical complications are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the occurrence of cardiovascular (CV) and thromboembolic (TE) adverse events (AE) in patients with localized PC who have received intense neoadjuvant ADT followed by prostatectomy. A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and conference abstracts was performed. The strategies were developed and applied for each electronic database on March 7th, 2023. Eligible studies included randomized and single-arm trials testing ARSIs prior to prostatectomy that adequately reported safety data regarding CV and TE AE, peri-operative complications, and mortality during therapy. Pooled incidence (PI) of AE with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was estimated using a random effects model. Quality assessment and reporting followed Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and PRISMA guidelines. PROSPERO: CRD42022344104. Nine randomized controlled trials and three single-arm phase II trials were included, comprising 702 patients (702 patients for CV AE and 522 for perioperative complications). The neoadjuvant regimen was classified as monotherapy with ARSI (100 patients), combination therapy with ADT + ARSI (383 patients), or ADT + ARSI + ARSI (219 patients). The PI of TE within the perioperative interval was 4.2% (95% CI = 2.6%-6.6%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .65), and the PI for CV AE was 4.6% (95% CI = 3.1%-6.7%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .71). Seven deaths were reported, resulting in a PI of 2.2% (95% CI = 1.3%-3.8%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .99), of which two were considered treatment-related and occurred within the perioperative period. The PI of hypertension grade 3-5 was 7.3% (95% CI = 4.8%-11.0%, I2 = 38.8%, P = .04). CV and TE AE associated with intense neoadjuvant hormone therapy in patients with localized PC can occur in up to 4.6% of cases. Our data warns for further assessment of thrombotic risk and prophylactic anticoagulation in this setting.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

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.

Nivolumab plus rucaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the phase 2 CheckMate 9KD trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib. METHODS: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA50-RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2-positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03338790.

Emerging biomarkers in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: tumour mutational burden, PD-L1 expression and APOBEC polypeptide-like signature in a patient with complete response to anti-programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor.

Immunotherapy has recently been incorporated into the treatment guidelines for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Nevertheless, the role of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in this setting is not completely defined. To date, PD-L1 expression and a high tumour mutational burden (TMB) seem to predict better responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors, but patients without these biomarkers may still respond to immunotherapy. There are some caveats regarding these biomarkers, such as lack of standardisation of techniques, tumour heterogeneity and other factors influencing the tumour microenvironment. Genomic signatures are other promising emerging strategies. We hereby discuss the management of a 70-year-old man with a metastatic recurrence of urothelial carcinoma within 1 year after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy. Tumour next-generation sequencing showed a high TMB and a CD274 (PD-L1) amplification. The patient was treated with pembrolizumab and achieved a complete response.

New approaches to targeting the androgen receptor pathway in prostate cancer.

The androgen signaling axis has been the main therapeutic target in the management of advanced prostate cancer for several decades. Over the past years, significant advances have been made in terms of a better understanding the androgen receptor (AR) pathway and mechanisms of castration resistance, along with the development of more potent AR-targeted therapies. New drugs, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, have been approved for castration-resistant prostate cancer and also have demonstrated an overall survival benefit in the castration-sensitive state. Despite these major advances, the majority of patients eventually present with disease progression and a rise in prostate-specific antigen, reflecting a continuous dependence of disease on the AR pathway. In this setting, a number of AR-related mechanisms of resistance have been described, and novel strategies to overcome them are an important unmet need. In this manuscript, we review the most promising strategies to target the AR pathway in prostate cancer, including bromodomain and extraterminal (BET)/bromodomain inhibitors, CREB-binding protein/p300 inhibitors, N-terminal domain inhibitors, proteolysis-targeting chimeras, and AR-targeting vaccines. Another interesting and disruptive approach to targeting the AR and potentially reversing resistance to second-generation AR antagonists is the cyclic administration of high-dose testosterone, known as bipolar androgen therapy, which is currently being explored in multiple ongoing trials.

Consensus for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: International guideline recommendations may not always be extrapolated to developing countries where access to resources is limited. In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), there have been successful drug and imaging advancements that were addressed in the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries for best-practice and limited-resource scenarios. METHODS: A total of 24 out of 300 questions addressed staging, treatment, and follow-up for patients with mCSPC both in best-practice settings and resource-limited settings. Responses were compiled and presented in percentage of clinicians supporting each response. Questions had 4-8 options for response. RESULTS: Recommendations for staging in mCSPC were split but there was consensus that chest x-ray, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography, and bone scan should be used where resources are limited. In both de novo and relapsed low-volume mCSPC, orchiectomy alone in limited resources was favored and in relapsed high-volume disease, androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel in limited resources and androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone in high-resource settings were consensus. A 3-weekly regimen of docetaxel was consensus among voters. When using abiraterone, a regimen of 1,000 mg plus prednisone 5 mg/d is optimal, but in limited-resource settings, half the panel agreed that abiraterone 250 mg with fatty foods plus prednisone 5 mg/d is acceptable. The panel recommended against the use of osteoclast-targeted therapy to prevent osseous complications. There was consensus that monitoring of patients undergoing systemic treatment should only be conducted in case of prostate-specific antigen elevation or progression-suggestive symptoms. CONCLUSION: The treatment recommendations for most topics addressed differed between the best-practice setting and resource-limited setting, accentuating the need for high-quality evidence that contemplates the effect of limited resources on the management of mCSPC.

Penile cancer: a Brazilian consensus statement for low- and middle-income countries.

PURPOSE: Penile cancer is highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, with significant morbidity and mortality rates. The first Brazilian consensus provides support to improve penile cancer patients' outcomes, based on expert's opinion and evidence from medical literature. METHODS: Fifty-one Brazilian experts (clinical oncologists, radiation oncologists, urologists, and pathologists) assembled and voted 104 multiple-choice questions, confronted the results with the literature, and ranked the levels of evidence. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals need to deliver more effective communication about the risk factors for penile cancer. Staging and follow-up of patients include physical examination, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Close monitoring is crucial, because most recurrences occur in the first 2-5 years. Lymph-node involvement is the most important predictive factor for survival, and management depends on the location (inguinal or pelvic) and the number of lymph nodes involved. Conservative treatment may be helpful in selected patients without compromising oncological outcomes; however, surgery yields the lowest rate of local recurrence. CONCLUSION: This consensus provides an essential decision-making orientation regarding this challenging disease.

Use of Immunotherapy in Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In an asymptomatic 77-yearold woman, former 55 packyears smoker, a routine X-ray showed a 45-mm superior left lobe lesion. A chest CT scan confirmed a 36-mm superior left lobe lesion and an aortic-pulmonary lymph node enlargement measuring 42 mm, suspicious for neoplasia. A PET-CT scan showed an elevated uptake in the primary lesion, in the aortic-pulmonary lymph node, and in the left hilar lymph node with a standardized uptake value - 40 and 4.3, respectively. CT-guided lung biopsy showed a lung squamous cell carcinoma. An endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for lymph-node staging was negative for lymph node spread. Brain MRI was negative. Final staging was determined to be a IIIA (T2bN2) squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

Oncology Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread all over the world in the past several months. No effective treatment for COVID-19 has been established. High transmissibility and considerable mortality rates have forced many national governments to implement quarantine measures. Many patients with cancer rely on clinical trials to receive their oncologic care, but the routine conduct of clinical trials has substantially changed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The oncology research community should implement formal policies based on the guidance given from regulatory agencies, with the goal of minimizing the risks of COVID-19 infection while maintaining appropriate oncologic treatments for patients during this pandemic.

Prognostic Value of Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) encompasses a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with distinct clinical behavior and prognoses. As a result of the increasing number of therapeutic options in the metastatic setting, it is crucial to improve prognostic stratification ability. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and combination platelet count and neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (COP-NLR) in patients with mRCC. We evaluated a cohort of mRCC patients treated with first-line pazopanib or sunitinib. Levels of NLR, PLR and COP-NLR were measured prior to systemic treatment and evaluated as prognostic predictors. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Data from 276 patients were included, of which 54.7% received first-line pazopanib and 45.3%, sunitinib. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk classification was intermediate and poor in 50% and 42.6% of patients, respectively. High NLR (> 3.5) was associated with inferior OS (median 9.6 vs 17.8 months, P < 0.001). A high PLR (> 200) was associated with inferior OS (median 10.3 vs 17 months, P = 0.002). The median OS in the COP-NLR 1, 2 and 3 groups were 19.0 months (95% CI 15.3-26.0), 13.1 months (95% CI 9.8-17.0) and 7.4 months (95% CI 3.6-11.9), respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, high NLR and high COP-NLR were associated with inferior OS. Both high NLR and high COP-NLR were associated with poorer OS in our cohort of patients with mRCC treated with first-line pazopanib or sunitinib.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG).

PURPOSE: The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. METHODS: Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. RESULTS: The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Immuno-oncology Era: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Combination treatments with immuno-oncology (IO) agents and IO agents plus a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) have been approved for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). No direct comparisons have been performed among these treatment options. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank the available regimens for first-line treatment in terms of survival benefit and efficacy. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement, a systematic search of reported studies was performed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE up to May 31, 2019. Network meta-analysis models were adjusted using the Bayesian method. Four randomized clinical trials, with a total of 3758 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Considering systemic therapy, 1880 patients had received sunitinib and 550, 432, 442, and 454 patients had received ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ipi + nivo), pembrolizumab plus axitinib (pembro + axi), avelumab plus axitinib (avelu + axi), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo + bev). No difference was found in overall survival between ipi + nivo and pembro + axi for the intention to treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.92-1.97). No difference was found in progression-free survival among the treatments. The overall response rate (ORR) was superior with pembro + axi and avelu + axi compared with the ORR with the other treatments (atezo + bev vs. pembro + axi: HR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.52-0.84; ipi + nivo vs. pembro + axi: HR, 0.73; 95% CrI, 0.59-0.90; atezo + bev vs. avelu + axi: HR, 0.55; 95% CrI, 0.43-0.71; avelu + axi vs. ipi + nivo: HR, 1.66; 95% CrI, 1.31-2.12), with no differences across them (HR, 1.21; 95% CrI, 0.95-1.53). In the present indirect comparison, for an intention to treat population, we found no survival differences between pembro + axi and ipi + nivo. All treatments showed better progression-free survival compared with sunitinib that was similar among them. The combination of an IO agent (pembrolizumab or avelumab) and axitinib seemed to be the most effective therapy for the ORR.

Renal cell cancer treatment: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American cooperative group-genitourinary and the Latin American renal cancer group: focus on surgery.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. METHODS: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. RESULTS: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Patients With Advanced Germ Cell Tumor Treated at a Tertiary Cancer Center in Brazil.

PURPOSE: Reported treatment outcomes for patients with advanced germ cell tumors (aGCT) are based mainly on series from developed nations. Data from low- and middle-income countries are underrepresented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2015, a retrospective analysis identified 300 patients with aGCT treated at our institution. Kaplan-Meier methods were used for analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) according to the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification Group (IGCCCG). RESULTS: Patients' median age was 28 years. According to the IGCCCG, 57% had good-, 18.3% intermediate-, and 24.7% poor-risk disease. Median α-fetoprotein levels were 2.9, 243, and 3,998 ng/mL, and those of human chorionic gonadotropin were 0.4, 113, and 301.5 mUI/mL in IGCCCG good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively. At a median 46 months of follow-up, 93 PFS events and 45 deaths had occurred and estimated 5-year PFS and OS were 69% and 85%, respectively, including 83% and 95.3% in good-risk, 70.9% and 83.6% in intermediate-risk, and 35.1% and 62.2% in poor-risk patients, respectively. In multivariable analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 was a significant independent prognostic factor with a hazard ratio of 2.58 (95% CI, 1.55 to 4.29; P < .001) and 6.20 (95% CI, 2.97 to 12.92; P < .001) for PFS and OS, respectively. CONCLUSION: Brazilian patients with aGCT in this cohort had similar outcomes as patients in the IGCCCG database. In comparison with contemporary series, patients with intermediate- and poor-risk aGCT had slightly inferior PFS and OS, possibly due to a high percentage of patients with poor performance status and less use of high-dose chemotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Docetaxel in Elderly Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Limited data are available about the tolerability and clinical outcomes of elderly patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who are treated with docetaxel. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRPC who were treated in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with mCRPC and a Karnosfky performance status of 60% or greater treated with docetaxel on any schedule as first-line chemotherapy between 2008 and 2013. The primary end point was a comparison of median overall survival (OS) according to age in this population. Secondary end points were comparisons of the rates of severe toxicities, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline of 50% or greater, and time to progression (TTP). Results were stratified by three age groups: younger than 65 years, 65 to 74 years, and 75 years or older. RESULTS: Among the 197 patients included, 68 (34%) were younger than 65 years, 85 (43%) were 65 to 74 years, and 44 (22%) were 75 years or older. The mean number of comorbidities was not different among groups (1.19 v 1.32 v 1.43; P = .54). Patients younger than 65 years received a higher cumulative dose of docetaxel (450 mg/m2 v 382 mg/m2 v 300 mg/m2; P = .004). The rates of PSA decline of 50% or greater (41% v 47% v 36.4%; P = .51) and the median TTP (5.13 v 5.13 v 4.7 months; P = .15) were comparable among all groups. The median OS was longer in the group of patients younger than age 65 years (19.6 v 12.4 v 12.3 months; P = .012). Rates of any grade 3 or higher adverse event were not different among groups (63.2% v 71.8% v 54.5%; P = .14). CONCLUSION: Administration of docetaxel in elderly patients who had good performance status was well tolerated. Rates of PSA decline and TTP were similar to those of younger patients, but median survival was lower.