SEOM-GG clinical guidelines for the management of germ-cell testicular cancer (2023).

Testicular germ cell tumors are the most common tumors in adolescent and young men. They are curable malignancies that should be treated with curative intent, minimizing acute and long-term side effects. Inguinal orchiectomy is the main diagnostic procedure, and is also curative for most localized tumors, while patients with unfavorable risk factors for recurrence, or those who are unable or unwilling to undergo close follow-up, may require adjuvant treatment. Patients with persistent markers after orchiectomy or advanced disease at diagnosis should be staged and classified according to the IGCCCG prognostic classification. BEP is the most recommended chemotherapy, but other schedules such as EP or VIP may be used to avoid bleomycin in some patients. Efforts should be made to avoid unnecessary delays and dose reductions wherever possible. Insufficient marker decline after each cycle is associated with poor prognosis. Management of residual masses after chemotherapy differs between patients with seminoma and non-seminoma tumors. Patients at high risk of relapse, those with refractory tumors, or those who relapse after chemotherapy should be managed by multidisciplinary teams in experienced centers. Salvage treatment for these patients includes conventional-dose chemotherapy (TIP) and/or high-dose chemotherapy, although the best regimen and strategy for each subgroup of patients is not yet well established. In late recurrences, early complete surgical resection should be performed when feasible. Given the high cure rate of TGCT, oncologists should work with patients to prevent and identify potential long-term side effects of the treatment. The above recommendations also apply to extragonadal retroperitoneal and mediastinal tumors.

Efficacy and safety of a structured de-escalation from antipseudomonal ß-lactams in bloodstream infections due to Enterobacterales (SIMPLIFY): an open-label, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: De-escalation from broad-spectrum to narrow-spectrum antibiotics is considered an important measure to reduce the selective pressure of antibiotics, but a scarcity of adequate evidence is a barrier to its implementation. We aimed to determine whether de-escalation from an antipseudomonal ß-lactam to a narrower-spectrum drug was non-inferior to continuing the antipseudomonal drug in patients with Enterobacterales bacteraemia. METHODS: An open-label, pragmatic, randomised trial was performed in 21 Spanish hospitals. Patients with bacteraemia caused by Enterobacterales susceptible to one of the de-escalation options and treated empirically with an antipseudomonal ß-lactam were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by urinary source) to de-escalate to ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (urinary tract infections only), cefuroxime, cefotaxime or ceftriaxone, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ciprofloxacin, or ertapenem in that order according to susceptibility (de-escalation group), or to continue with the empiric antipseudomonal ß-lactam (control group). Oral switching was allowed in both groups. The primary outcome was clinical cure 3-5 days after end of treatment in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, formed of patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Safety was assessed in all participants. Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI of the absolute difference in cure rate was above the -10% non-inferiority margin. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2015-004219-19) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02795949) and is complete. FINDINGS: 2030 patients were screened between Oct 5, 2016, and Jan 23, 2020, of whom 171 were randomly assigned to the de-escalation group and 173 to the control group. 164 (50%) patients in the de-escalation group and 167 (50%) in the control group were included in the mITT population. 148 (90%) patients in the de-escalation group and 148 (89%) in the control group had clinical cure (risk difference 1·6 percentage points, 95% CI -5·0 to 8·2). The number of adverse events reported was 219 in the de-escalation group and 175 in the control group, of these, 53 (24%) in the de-escalation group and 56 (32%) in the control group were considered severe. Seven (5%) of 164 patients in the de-escalation group and nine (6%) of 167 patients in the control group died during the 60-day follow-up. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: De-escalation from an antipseudomonal ß-lactam in Enterobacterales bacteraemia following a predefined rule was non-inferior to continuing the empiric antipseudomonal drug. These results support de-escalation in this setting. FUNDING: Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013-2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases; Spanish Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Platform, co-financed by the EU; European Development Regional Fund "A way to achieve Europe", Operative Program Intelligence Growth 2014-2020.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Medical oncology workload, workforce census, and needs in Spain: two nationwide studies by the Spanish Society of medical oncology

Purpose Growing complexity and demand for cancer care entail increased challenges for Medical Oncology (MO). The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has promoted studies to provide updated data to estimate the need for medical oncologists in 2040 and to analyse current professional standing of young medical oncologists. Methods Two national, online surveys were conducted. The first (2021) targeted 146 Heads of MO Departments, and the second (2022), 775 young medical oncologists who had completed their MO residency between 2014 and 2021. Participants were contacted individually, and data were processed anonymously. Results Participation rates reached 78.8% and 48.8%, respectively. The updated data suggest that 87–110 new medical oncologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) should be recruited each year to achieve an optimal ratio of 110–130 new cases per medical oncologist FTE by 2040. The professional standing analysis reveals that 9.1% of medical oncologists trained in Spain do not work in clinical care in the country, with tremendous employment instability (only 15.2% have a permanent contract). A high percentage of young medical oncologists have contemplated career paths other than clinical care (64.5%) or working in other countries (51.7%). Conclusions Optimal ratios of medical oncologists must be achieved to tackle the evolution of MO workloads and challenges in comprehensive cancer care. However, the incorporation and permanence of medical oncologists in the national healthcare system in Spain could be compromised by their current sub-optimal professional standing (AU)

Medical oncology workload, workforce census, and needs in Spain: two nationwide studies by the Spanish Society of medical oncology.

PURPOSE: Growing complexity and demand for cancer care entail increased challenges for Medical Oncology (MO). The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has promoted studies to provide updated data to estimate the need for medical oncologists in 2040 and to analyse current professional standing of young medical oncologists. METHODS: Two national, online surveys were conducted. The first (2021) targeted 146 Heads of MO Departments, and the second (2022), 775 young medical oncologists who had completed their MO residency between 2014 and 2021. Participants were contacted individually, and data were processed anonymously. RESULTS: Participation rates reached 78.8% and 48.8%, respectively. The updated data suggest that 87-110 new medical oncologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) should be recruited each year to achieve an optimal ratio of 110-130 new cases per medical oncologist FTE by 2040. The professional standing analysis reveals that 9.1% of medical oncologists trained in Spain do not work in clinical care in the country, with tremendous employment instability (only 15.2% have a permanent contract). A high percentage of young medical oncologists have contemplated career paths other than clinical care (64.5%) or working in other countries (51.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal ratios of medical oncologists must be achieved to tackle the evolution of MO workloads and challenges in comprehensive cancer care. However, the incorporation and permanence of medical oncologists in the national healthcare system in Spain could be compromised by their current sub-optimal professional standing.

Exploratory analyses of treatment subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status and according to PD-L1 expression in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial of avelumab maintenance in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) to determine the interaction by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status for overall survival (OS), and additional analyses of survival per a different PD-L1 expression cutoff of ≥ 1% in tumor cells or immune cells (TC/IC). METHODS: JAVELIN Bladder 100 data were used for the analysis of the interaction by PD-L1 status (per cutoff used in the trial) for OS and, additionally, OS and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses per a different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff (Ventana SP263 assay). RESULTS: No significant interaction between treatment and PD-L1 status was observed for OS. Clinically meaningful and robust survival data were observed in favor of avelumab using the different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the benefit of avelumab maintenance in la/mUC regardless of PD-L1 expression, consistent with approved labels.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women and their babies: clinical and epidemiological features.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the risk associated with COVID-19 in pregnant women on maternal and neonatal outcomes in Catalonia (Spain) in 2020, before the beginning of COVID-19 vaccination campaign. METHOD: Cross-sectional descriptive study with all pregnant women (41,560) and their live newborns (42,097) (1st March to 31st December 2020). Women were classified: positive and negative COVID-19 diagnosis during pregnancy. The outcomes analysed were complications during pregnancy, gestational age, admission of newborns to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and birth weight. Associations among positive COVID-19 and maternal and infant variables were measured with logistic regression models. Results were expressed as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Models were adjusted for nationality, maternal age, socioeconomic status, type of pregnancy and type of centre where the delivery occurred (public or private management hospital). RESULTS: A total of 696 women (1.7%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during pregnancy. Women with COVID-19 were 4.37 times more likely to have complications during pregnancy (4.37; 3.52-5.40). A total of 713 newborns (1.7%) were from mothers with COVID-19. A positive diagnosis of COVID-19 increased the risk of preterm birth (1.41; 1.03-1.89), admission to NICU (1.40; 1.06-1.82) and low birth weight (1.35; 0.99-1.80) in babies. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women with COVID-19 had higher risk of developing complications during pregnancy and their newborns were more likely to be admitted to NICU and had prematurity.

Phase II Trial Evaluating Olaparib Maintenance in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Responsive or Stabilized on Docetaxel Treatment: SOGUG-IMANOL Study.

The SOGUG-IMANOL trial was a phase 2, uncontrolled, Spanish multicenter study to assess the effect of maintenance treatment with olaparib on radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who achieved partial or complete response or disease stabilization on docetaxel treatment and had a documented germline/somatic mutation in any of the homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Patients received olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily. From the screened population (n = 134), 26 (19.4%) somatic mutations were found, and 14 patients were included in the study. The median radiographic PFS was 11.1 (95%CI, 5.7 to 16.5) months. The median PSA-PFS was 3.5 (95%CI, 1.0 to 6.0) months, and the median clinical PFS was 14.7 (95%CI, 1.8 to 27.5 months). Clinical benefit was observed in 12 patients (85.7%, 95%CI 67.4% to 100%), including two patients with partial response and 10 with stable disease. Six patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events: asthenia (n = 3), anemia (n = 2) and neutropenia (n = 1). In this setting, olaparib has been shown to be an efficacious maintenance treatment in terms of radiographic PFS and clinical benefit, becoming a therapeutic option for some patients harboring an HRR gene mutation and in scenarios where further investigation is needed.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

Introduction: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. Methods: In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. Results: In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022)

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a “bridge” to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab–axitinib, nivolumab–cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab–lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (AU)

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022).

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Phase II Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Savolitinib and Durvalumab in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cancer (CALYPSO).

PURPOSE: Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated. METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status). RESULTS: Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction). CONCLUSION: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

Long-term Clinical Outcomes of a Spanish Cohort of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients with a Complete Response to Sunitinib.

INTRODUCTION: The long-term clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and a complete response (CR) to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib are poorly known. The characteristics of these patients could reveal previously undetected associations with clinical variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational, retrospective study (ATILA) used data from a registry of patients with mRCC who had received first-line sunitinib and had achieved CR from 2007 to 2018 in Spain. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with CR were included; 48 patients (77.4%) received sunitinib in monotherapy and 14 (22.6%) combined with or followed by local treatment. Median age was 58.5 years (range, 32-81). Most patients (79.0%) had clear cell histology and had undergone previous nephrectomy (90.3%). The majority (70.2%) had an intermediate IMDC prognosis, 23% favorable and 7.0% poor. The median time on treatment with sunitinib was 28.2 months (IQR, 16.7-41.0) and the median time to CR was 10.9 months (IQR, 7.2-19.3). After a median follow-up of 8 years (range, 3-13 years), the median PFS was not reached. The overall median duration of complete response was 64.1 months (IQR, 32.2-99.4). The tolerance and safety profile of sunitinib was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: Durable CR to sunitinib was observed in patients regardless the prognosis group, metastasis site or histology type, with 75% of patients remaining in CR after 10 years. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03916458.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women and their babies:clinical and epidemiological features / Infección por SARS-CoV-2 en mujeres embarazadas y sus recién nacidos: características clínicas y epidemiológicas

Objective: Assess the risk associated with COVID-19 in pregnant women on maternal and neonatal outcomes in Catalonia (Spain) in 2020, before the beginning of COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Method: Cross-sectional descriptive study with all pregnant women (41,560) and their live newborns (42,097) (1st March to 31st December 2020). Women were classified: positive and negative COVID-19 diagnosis during pregnancy. The outcomes analysed were complications during pregnancy, gestational age, admission of newborns to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and birth weight. Associations among positive COVID-19 and maternal and infant variables were measured with logistic regression models. Results were expressed as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Models were adjusted for nationality, maternal age, socioeconomic status, type of pregnancy and type of centre where the delivery occurred (public or private management hospital). Results: A total of 696 women (1.7%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during pregnancy. Women with COVID-19 were 4.37 times more likely to have complications during pregnancy (4.37; 3.52-5.40). A total of 713 newborns (1.7%) were from mothers with COVID-19. A positive diagnosis of COVID-19 increased the risk of preterm birth (1.41; 1.03-1.89), admission to NICU (1.40; 1.06-1.82) and low birth weight (1.35; 0.99-1.80) in babies. Conclusions: Pregnant women with COVID-19 had higher risk of developing complications during pregnancy and their newborns were more likely to be admitted to NICU and had prematurity.(AU)

Objetivo: Evaluar el riesgo asociado de COVID-19 y los resultados en mujeres embarazadas y sus recién nacidos en Cataluña (España) antes del inicio de la campaña de vacunación. Método: Estudio descriptivo transversal de mujeres gestantes (41.560) y sus recién nacidos (42.097) (del 1 de marzo al 31 de diciembre de 2020). Las gestantes fueron clasificadas según diagnóstico COVID-19 positivo o negativo durante el embarazo. Los resultados analizados fueron complicaciones gestacionales, semana gestacional, ingreso del recién nacido en la unidad de cuidados intensivos neonatales (UCIN) y bajo peso al nacer. Las asociaciones entre COVID-19 positivo y variables maternas y perinatales se midieron con regresión logística. Los resultados se expresaron con odds ratio e intervalo de confianza del 95%. Los modelos se ajustaron por nacionalidad, edad materna, nivel socioeconómico, tipo de embarazo y titularidad (pública o privada) del hospital donde se dio a luz. Resultados: Un total de 696 gestantes (1,7%) fueron diagnosticadas de COVID-19 durante el embarazo. Las gestantes con COVID-19 presentaron 4,37 veces mayor probabilidad de tener complicaciones durante el embarazo (4,37; 3,52-5,40). Hubo 713 recién nacidos (1,7%) de gestantes con COVID-19. El diagnóstico positivo de COVID-19 incrementó el riesgo de prematuridad (1,41; 1,03-1,89), ingreso en UCIN (1,40; 1,06-1,82) y bajo peso al nacer (1,35; 0,99-1,80) de los recién nacidos. Conclusiones: Las gestantes con COVID-19 presentaron mayor riesgo de desarrollar complicaciones durante el embarazo y sus hijos tuvieron mayor probabilidad de ingreso en la UCIN y de prematuridad.(AU)

Health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus versus sunitinib (CLEAR): a randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6-22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was -1·75 (SE 0·59) versus -2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, -5·93 (0·86) versus -6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and -4·96 (0·85) versus -6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43-12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14-15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94-1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29-15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·14; 0·88 [0·74-1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43-12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·00; 0·83 [0·70-0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00-not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14-131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14-153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29-105·14; 0·60 [0·47-0·77], log-rank p<0·0001) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 124·86 weeks (94·71-134·57) versus 74·86 weeks (54·14-96·00; 0·67 [0·53-0·85], log-rank p=0·0012) for the EQ-5D VAS. No outcomes on any of the instruments significantly favoured sunitinib over lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab. Most HRQOL comparisons of lenvatinib plus everolimus versus sunitinib were similar or favoured sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: These HRQOL results demonstrate that patients given lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment had similar or favourable scores compared with patients given sunitinib, particularly with respect to time to definitive deterioration. These results support the efficacy and safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai (Nutley, NJ, USA) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA).

Measures to evaluate quality of care in renal cancer: results of a Delphi study in Spain

PurposeTo review current measures for renal cancer care and develop a comprehensive and updated list of measures for their practical use in Spain.MethodsThe study was developed by Fundación ECO, a Spanish foundation aiming to improve oncology quality of care. A systematic literature review was carried out to identify measures and knowledge gaps. A scientific committee composed of nine experts reviewed the literature findings and added measures. A preliminary list of 42 measures was evaluated with the Delphi method to gather feedback from 47 medical oncology experts in Spain. Experts scored the appropriateness of the measures and ranked their priority in two consecutive online surveys. The scientific committee reviewed the Delphi results and developed the measures. A technical group from Universidad Francisco de Vitoria conducted and oversaw the Delphi method.ResultsThe Delphi method led to consensus on all 42 measures. The scientific committee used a prioritisation matrix to select 25 of these measures for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer. These measures regarded structure, process, and outcome and covered general management, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and evaluation of health outcomes. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for all 25 measures, including their definition, formula, acceptable level of attainment, and rationale.ConclusionsThis manuscript aims to provide healthcare professionals with expert- and evidence-based measures that are useful for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer in Spain and cover all aspects and stages.

Measures to evaluate quality of care in renal cancer: results of a Delphi study in Spain.

PURPOSE: To review current measures for renal cancer care and develop a comprehensive and updated list of measures for their practical use in Spain. METHODS: The study was developed by Fundación ECO, a Spanish foundation aiming to improve oncology quality of care. A systematic literature review was carried out to identify measures and knowledge gaps. A scientific committee composed of nine experts reviewed the literature findings and added measures. A preliminary list of 42 measures was evaluated with the Delphi method to gather feedback from 47 medical oncology experts in Spain. Experts scored the appropriateness of the measures and ranked their priority in two consecutive online surveys. The scientific committee reviewed the Delphi results and developed the measures. A technical group from Universidad Francisco de Vitoria conducted and oversaw the Delphi method. RESULTS: The Delphi method led to consensus on all 42 measures. The scientific committee used a prioritisation matrix to select 25 of these measures for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer. These measures regarded structure, process, and outcome and covered general management, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and evaluation of health outcomes. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for all 25 measures, including their definition, formula, acceptable level of attainment, and rationale. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript aims to provide healthcare professionals with expert- and evidence-based measures that are useful for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer in Spain and cover all aspects and stages.