Search

BackgroundThree or four cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard neoadjuvant treatment prior to cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Although NCCN guidelines recommend 4 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine, three cycles are also commonly administered in clinical practice. In this multicenter retrospective study, we assessed a large and homogenous cohort of patients with urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) treated with three or four cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine followed by radical cystectomy, in order to explore whether three vs. four cycles were associated with different outcomes.MethodsPatients with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive UBC included in this retrospective study had to be treated with either 3 (cohort A) or 4 (cohort B) cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine as neoadjuvant therapy before undergoing radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy. Outcomes including pathologic downstaging to non-muscle invasive disease, pathologic complete response (defined as absence of disease -ypT0), overall- and cancer-specific- survival as well as time to recurrence were compared between cohorts A vs. B.ResultsA total of 219 patients treated at 14 different high-volume Institutions were included in this retrospective study. Patients who received 3 (cohort A) vs. 4 (cohort B) cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine were 160 (73,1%) vs. 59 (26,9%).At univariate analysis, the number of neoadjuvant cycles was not associated with either pathologic complete response, pathologic downstaging, time to recurrence, cancer specific, and overall survival. Of note, patients in cohort B vs. A showed a worse non-cancer specific overall survival at univariate analysis (HR= 2.53; 95 CI= 1.05 - 6.10; p=0.046), although this finding was not confirmed at multivariate analysis.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that 3 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine may be equally effective, with less long-term toxicity, compared to 4 cycles in the neoadjuvant setting.

On March 11, 2020, the WHO has declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic. As the last few months have profoundly changed the delivery of health care in the world, we should recognize the effort of numerous comprehensive cancer centers to share experiences and knowledge to develop best practices to care for oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients as well as physicians must be aware of all these constraints and profound social, personal, and medical challenges posed by the tackling of this deadly disease in everyday life in order to adjust to such a completely novel scenario. This review will discuss facing the challenges and the current approaches that cancer centers in Italy and United States are adopting in order to cope with clinical and research activities.

In the last decades, the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has remarkably improved following the advent of the “targeted therapy” era. The expanding knowledge on the prominent role played by angiogenesis in RCC pathogenesis has led to approval of multiple anti-angiogenic agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, cabozantinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab. These agents can induce radiological responses and delay cancer progression for months or years before onset of resistance, with a clinically meaningful activity. The need for markers of prognosis and efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents has become more compelling as novel systemic immunotherapy agents have also been approved in RCC and can be administered as an alternative to angiogenesis inhibitors. Anti PD-1 monoclonal antibody nivolumab has been approved in the second-line setting after tyrosine kinase inhibitors failure, while combination of nivolumab plus anti CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ipilimumab has been approved as first-line therapy of RCC patients at intermediate or poor prognosis. In this review article, biomarkers of prognosis and efficacy of antiangiogenic therapies are summarized with a focus on those that have the potential to affect treatment decision-making in RCC. Biomarkers predictive of toxicity of anti-angiogenic agents have also been discussed.