Search

BACKGROUND: The benefit of perioperative oncological treatment in men with penile cancer is uncertain. In 2015, treatment recommendations were centralised in Sweden and treatment guidelines were updated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the use of oncological treatment in men with penile cancer increased after the introduction of centralised recommendations, and whether such therapy is associated with better survival. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study including a total of 426 men diagnosed with penile cancer with lymph node or distant metastases in Sweden during 2000-2018. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We first assessed the change in the proportion of patients with an indication for perioperative oncological treatment who actually received such treatment. Second, we used Cox regression to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for disease-specific mortality associated with perioperative treatment. Comparisons were made for both all men without perioperative treatment and for those who did not receive treatment but who lacked apparent contraindications for treatment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased from 2000 to 2018, from 32% of patients with an indication for treatment during the first 4 yr to 63% during the last 4 yr. In comparison to patients potentially eligible for oncological treatment who did not receive it, those who were treated had a 37% lower risk of disease-specific death (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98). Stage migration because of improvements in diagnostic tools over time may have inflated the more recent survival estimates. An influence of residual confounding due to comorbidity and other potential confounders cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of perioperative oncological treatment increased after the centralisation of penile cancer care in Sweden. Although the observational study design precludes causal inference, the f

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC have a poor prognosis with a 3-year overall survival (OS) rate of 50%. Recently, combination of docetaxel (75mg/m2 every 6 weeks for 6 cycles) with ADT has become a new standard for such patients, based on results of 2 large phase 3 trials showing a significant OS benefit. In these trials, docetaxel was initiated within 3 months after ADT start. Timing of ADT and chemotherapy (CT) is controversial. In breast cancer, endocrine therapy is always started after CT, the rational being that ADT will turn clones of tumor cells in to a stage of dormancy where CT is less effective. Methods: This phase 3 trial randomized newly diagnosed mHSPC patients to receive cabazitaxel (CABA), 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 10 cycles, followed by ADT (immediately after last CABA cycle) versus ADT alone. Primary end-point was OS. Secondary end-point was progression free survival. The study planned to include 400 patients but was closed prematurely due to low inclusion rate. A total 31 patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC were included and here we present the results. Results: Median follow up was 31 month. Of the CABA treated patients, 66.8% got six cycles or more and 46.7% completed all 10 courses. Median OS was 32,5 months with CABA followed by ADT and 29,5 months with ADT alone (HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.38-5.38). Median progression free survival was significantly longer in CABA treated patients (29 vs 12 months, HR 3.96 (95% CI 1.49-10.49). Main grade ≥ 3 toxicities were neutropenia (66%). Conclusions: In conclusion, results from this prematurely terminated trial suggest that CABA followed by ADT is effective in newly diagnosed mHSPC and shows a manageable toxicity. These results have to be validated in larger randomized trials., Supplement:5, Meeting Abstract: 811P

Funding Agency:Sanofi aventis