Search

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial., Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management., Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference., Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference., Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus)., Results and Limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease., Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus conference on testicular cancer was held on 3-5 November 2016 in Paris, France. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 36 leading experts in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular cancer (34 panel members attended the conference; an additional two panel members [CB and K-PD] participated in all preparatory work and subsequent manuscript development). The aim of the conference was to develop detailed recommendations on topics relating to testicular cancer that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and where the available level of evidence is insufficient. The main topics identified for discussion related to: (1) diagnostic work-up and patient assessment; (2) stage I disease; (3) stage II-III disease; (4) post-chemotherapy surgery, salvage chemotherapy, salvage and desperation surgery and special topics; and (5) survivorship and follow-up schemes. The experts addressed questions relating to one of the five topics within five working groups. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel. A consensus vote was obtained following whole-panel discussions, and the consensus recommendations were then further developed in post-meeting discussions in written form. This manuscript presents the results of the expert panel discussions, including the consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Background: Patients with advanced, incurable cancer receiving anticancer treatment often experience multidimensional symptoms. We hypothesize that real-time monitoring of both symptoms and clinical syndromes will improve symptom management by oncologists and patient outcomes., Patients and Methods: In this prospective multicenter cluster-randomized phase-III trial, patients with incurable, symptomatic, solid tumors, who received new outpatient chemotherapy with palliative intention, were eligible. Immediately before the weekly oncologists' visit, patients completed the palm-based E-MOSAIC assessment (Edmonton-Symptom-Assessment-Scale, ≤3 additional symptoms, estimated nutritional intake, body weight change, Karnofsky Performance Status, medications for pain, fatigue, nutrition). A cumulative, longitudinal monitoring sheet (LoMoS) was printed immediately. Eligible experienced oncologists were defined as one cluster each and randomized to receive the immediate print-out LoMoS (intervention) or not (control). Primary analysis limited to patients having uninterrupted (>4/6 visits with same oncologist) patient-oncologist sequences was a mixed model for the difference in patients global quality of life (G-QoL; items 29/30 of EORTC-QlQ-c30) between baseline (BL) and week 6. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all eligible patients., Results: In 8 centers, 82 oncologists treated 264 patients (median 66 years; overall survival intervention 6.3, control 5.4 months) with various tumors. The between-arm difference in G-QoL of 102 uninterrupted patients (intervention: 55; control: 47) was 6.8 (P = 0.11) in favor of the intervention; in a sensitivity analysis (oncologists treating ≥2 patients; 50, 39), it was 9.0 (P = 0.07). ITT analysis revealed improvement in symptoms (difference last study visit-BL: intervention -5.4 versus control 2.1, P = 0.003) and favored the intervention for communication and coping. More patients with high symptom load received immediate symptom management (chart review, nurse-patient interview) by oncologists getting the LoMoS., Conclusion: Monitoring of patient symptoms, clinical syndromes and their management clearly reduced patients' symptoms, but not QoL. Our results encourage the implementation of real-time monitoring in the routine workflow of oncologist with a computer solution., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Following inguinal orchidectomy, management options for patients with stage I seminoma include initial surveillance or treatment with adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The anticipated relapse rate for patients followed by surveillance alone is ∼15%, with adjuvant treatment this risk is reduced to ∼4%-5% at 5 years. After carboplatin treatment, follow-up strategies vary and there are no validated, predictive markers of relapse., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients presenting with stage I seminoma who received a single cycle of adjuvant carboplatin in South Central England between 1996 and 2013. We report on outcome and the results of univariate and multivariate analysis evaluating possible risk factors for post carboplatin relapse., Results: A total of 517 eligible patients were identified. All underwent nuclear medicine estimation of glomerular filtration rate before treatment with carboplatin (dosed at area under the curve × 7). With a median follow-up of 47.2 months (range 0.4-214 months), 21/517 patients have relapsed resulting in a 5-year estimated relapse-free survival of 95.0% (95% confidence interval 92.8% to 97.3%). Median time to relapse was 22.7 months (range 12.5-109.5 months). Relapse beyond 3 years was rare (4/517; 0.8%). Twenty of 21 (95%) relapsed patients had retroperitoneal lymph node metastases. The majority (16/21; 76%) of patients had elevated tumour markers at relapse. Twenty of 517 (3.9%) patients developed a new contralateral testicular germ-cell cancer. There were no seminoma-related deaths. Tumour size was the only variable significantly associated with an increased risk of relapse., Conclusions: Overall results for this large cohort of patients confirm an excellent prognosis for these patients with outcomes equivalent to those seen in prospective clinical trials. Increasing tumour size alone appears to be associated with an increased risk of post chemotherapy relapse., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Seminoma stage I is the most frequent testis cancer and single-dose carboplatin (AUC7) is an effective and widely used adjuvant treatment. Underdosing of carboplatin by 10% has been shown to almost double the rate of relapse and hence correct dosing based on accurate GFR measurement is crucial. The gold standard of GFR measurement with a radiolabelled isotope is expensive and not readily available. In many institutions, it is replaced by GFR estimation with the Cockcroft-Gault formula, which might lead to significant carboplatin underdosing and potentially inferior clinical outcome., Methods: Retrospective analysis of all patients with stage I seminoma treated with adjuvant carboplatin between 1999 and 2012. All patients had serum creatinine measured and underwent GFR measurement with a radioisotope ((51)Cr EDTA or (99m)Tc DTPA), which was compared with seven standard GFR estimation formulae (Cockcroft-Gault, CKD-EPI, Jelliffe, Martin, Mayo, MDRD, Wright) and a flat dosing strategy. Bias, precision, rates of under- and overdosing of GFR estimates were compared with measured GFR. Bland-Altman plots were done., Results: A total of 426 consecutive Caucasian male patients were included: median age 39 years (range 19-60 years), median measured GFR 118 ml/min (51-209), median administered carboplatin dose 1000 mg (532-1638). In comparison to isotopic GFR measurement, a relevant proportion of patients would have received ≤ 90% of carboplatin dose through the use of GFR estimation formulae: 4% using Mayo, 9% Martin, 18% Cockcroft-Gault, 24% Wright, 63% Jelliffe, 49% MDRD and 41% using CKD-EPI. The flat dosing strategy, Wright and Cockcroft-Gault formulae, showed the smallest bias with mean percentage error of +1.9, +0.4 and +2.1, respectively., Conclusions: Using Cockcroft-Gault or any other formula for GFR estimation leads to underdosing of adjuvant carboplatin in a relevant number of patients with Seminoma stage I and should not be regarded as standard of care., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Oral temozolomide has shown similar efficacy to dacarbazine in phase III trials with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.1 months. Bevacizumab has an inhibitory effect on the proliferation of melanoma and sprouting endothelial cells. We evaluated the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide to improve efficacy in stage IV melanoma., Patients and Methods: Previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of two or more were treated with temozolomide 150 mg/m(2) days 1-7 orally and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg body weight i.v. day 1 every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was disease stabilisation rate [complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD)] at week 12 (DSR12); secondary end points were best overall response, PFS, overall survival (OS) and adverse events., Results: Sixty-two patients (median age 59 years) enrolled at nine Swiss centres. DSR12 was 52% (PR: 10 patients and SD: 22 patients). Confirmed overall response rate was 16.1% (CR: 1 patient and PR: 9 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.2 and 9.6 months. OS (12.0 versus 9.2 months; P = 0.014) was higher in BRAF V600E wild-type patients., Conclusions: The primary end point was surpassed showing promising activity of this bevacizumab/temozolomide combination with a favourable toxicity profile. Response and OS were significantly higher in BRAF wild-type patients.