Search

Background: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a Trop-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate containing cytotoxic SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. SG received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval for locally advanced (LA) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor, based on cohort 1 of the TROPHY-U-01 study. Mutations in the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) gene are associated with increased adverse events (AEs) with irinotecan-based therapies. Whether UGT1A1 status could impact SG toxicity and efficacy remains unclear., Patients and Methods: TROPHY-U-01 (NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label, phase II registrational study. Cohort 1 includes patients with LA or mUC who progressed after platinum- and checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies. SG was administered at 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per central review; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Post hoc safety analyses were exploratory with descriptive statistics. Updated analyses include longer follow-up., Results: Cohort 1 included 113 patients. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, ORR was 28% (95% CI 20.2% to 37.6%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.4 months (95% CI 3.5-6.9 months) and 10.9 months (95% CI 8.9-13.8 months), respectively. Occurrence of grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs and treatment-related discontinuation were consistent with prior reports. UGT1A1 status was wildtype (∗1|∗1) in 40%, heterozygous (∗1|∗28) in 42%, homozygous (∗28|∗28) in 12%, and missing in 6% of patients. In patients with ∗1|∗1, ∗1|∗28, and ∗28|∗28 genotypes, any grade treatment-related AEs occurred in 93%, 94%, and 100% of patients, respectively, and were managed similarly regardless of UGT1A1 status., Conclusions: With longer follow-up, the ORR remains high in patients with heavily pretreated LA or mUC. Safety data were consistent with the known SG toxicity profile. AE incidence varied across UGT1A1 subgroups; however, discontinuation rates remained relatively low for all groups., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations are oncogenic drivers of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Pemigatinib is a selective, oral inhibitor of FGFR1-3 with antitumor activity. We report the efficacy and safety of pemigatinib in the open-label, single-arm, phase II study of previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 alterations (FIGHT-201; NCT02872714)., Patients and Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements (cohort A) and other FGF/FGFR alterations (cohort B) were included. Patients received pemigatinib 13.5 mg once daily continuously (CD) or intermittently (ID) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally confirmed objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 in cohort A-CD. Secondary endpoints included ORR in cohorts A-ID and B, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Overall, 260 patients were enrolled and treated (A-CD, n = 101; A-ID, n = 103; B, n = 44; unconfirmed FGF/FGFR status, n = 12). All discontinued treatment, most commonly due to progressive disease (68.5%). ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] in cohorts A-CD and A-ID was 17.8% (10.9% to 26.7%) and 23.3% (15.5% to 32.7%), respectively. Among patients with the most common FGFR3 mutation (S249C; n = 107), ORR was similar between cohorts (A-CD, 23.9%; A-ID, 24.6%). In cohorts A-CD/A-ID, median (95% CI) DOR was 6.2 (4.1-8.3)/6.2 (4.6-8.0) months, PFS was 4.0 (3.5-4.2)/4.3 (3.9-6.1) months, and OS was 6.8 (5.3-9.1)/8.9 (7.5-15.2) months. Pemigatinib had limited clinical activity among patients in cohort B. Of 36 patients with samples available at progression, 6 patients had 8 acquired FGFR3 secondary resistance mutations (V555M/L, n = 3; V553M, n = 1; N540K/S, n = 2; M528I, n = 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events overall were diarrhea (44.6%) and alopecia, stomatitis, and hyperphosphatemia (42.7% each)., Conclusions: Pemigatinib was generally well tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity in previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements., Competing Interests: Disclosures AN received honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, MSD, and Roche; served as a consultant and/or advisor to AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BMS, Catalym, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, MSD, Rainier Therapeutics, Roche, and Seattle Genetics/Astellas; received research funding paid to the institution from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Ipsen, and MSD; received payments for travel and accommodations from AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Rainer Therapeutics, and Roche; and reports that his spouse is an employee and shareholder of Bayer. DP received research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer/Astellas; served as a consultant for Astellas Pharma, BMS/Medarex, Merck, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer; and received payments for travel and accommodations from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. RL received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Isotopia, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; served as a consultant and/or advisor for Astellas Medivation, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Immunai, Kamada, NeoPharm, Oncohost, Pfizer, and Sanofi; received travel support from Janssen and Pfizer; and served as a principal investigator on studies from BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer. SG received research funding from Acrotech, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Five Prime Therapeutics, Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Immunocore, Incyte, LSK BioPharma, MedImmune, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics, Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, and Viralytics. AF received honoraria from Astellas, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Seagen. JGD received researching funding from Astellas, BMS, GSK, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi and honoraria for serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, and Roche. MAB has acted as a paid consultant for and/or as a member of the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genomic Health, Janssen, Nektar, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SeaGen and has received grants to his institution from AAA, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Genentech/Roche, Genome & Company, Incyte, Merck, Nektar, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, SeaGen, Tricon Pharmaceuticals, and Xencor for work carried out as outside of the current study. PRD received grants to institution from Pfizer; received consulting fees for participation on advisory boards from BMS, Ipsen, Merck, and Pfizer; received honoraria for lectures from Bayer; received travel support from Janssen; serves as a substitute board member for the Clinical Trials College, Federal Public Service, Kingdom of Belgium; and holds stock or stock options in Alkermes and Biocartis Group NV. MIM received research grants paid to his institution from Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Alliance Foundation Trials, ALX Oncology, Arvinas, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Incyte, Loxo, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Seagen; served as a consultant for Loxo/Lilly; owns stock in Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer; and reports a relationship with Elsevier, Research to Practice, and Medscape. TF received honoraria and payments for travel and accommodations from Astellas; had a consulting or advisory role for AADi Therapeutics, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Seagen/Astellas; and received research funding paid to the institution from BMS, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, and Trishula. MM served as a consultant and/or advisor to Alfasigma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Sciclone and owns shares in Epigen Therapeutics and Theravance. AG, XL, and MLV are employees and shareholders of Incyte. YL received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, and Pfizer and received payments for travel and accommodations from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Organ-sparing strategies in the management of local or locally advanced cancers meet a dual objective: tumor control and preservation of the function of the involved organ. Given the morbidity and mortality of cystectomy and its impact on quality of life and bladder function, bladder-sparing strategies have emerged for the management of urothelial muscle invasive bladder cancer, mostly through trimodal treatment, which consists in maximal trans-urethral resection of bladder tumor, followed by chemo-radiotherapy. This review presents the modalities of trimodal treatment, before exposing the advantages and limitations of this strategy compared to cystectomy among operable patients. Despite the absence of comparative data from randomized trials, the two approaches seem to provide similar oncological results among appropriately selected patients. In modern series, the rate of salvage cystectomy is approximately 15% at 5 years; this delayed cystectomy does not seem to be associated with greater morbidity and mortality as compared to upfront cystectomy. Emphasis is placed in the review on quality of life data of these two approaches. In order to optimize the selection of patients eligible to trimodal therapy, the classical predictive factors of response to radio(chemo)therapy are critically analyzed, with the perspective of innovative molecular biomarkers. Finally, a close multidisciplinary collaboration is needed for the choice and the execution of the therapeutic strategy, and the patient should be fully involved in the decision-making process., (Copyright © 2022 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

New combinations of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or dual ICI have been shown to be effective in phase III trials compared to sunitinib in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer. While ICI doublet is already used in other indications, TKI/ICI combinations are more recent and the management of their adverse effects (AEs) are less well known, particularly with regard to the accountability of each therapeutic class. The objective of this article is to analyze the safety data from the main phase III studies to provide clinicians with practical advice for managing the AEs from these combinations. Their management depends largely on the type of combination and their grade. In the case of a TKI/ICI combination, discontinuation of the 2 molecules is considered from grade 2. Rapid improvement in symptoms suggests that the AE is related to the TKI. It is then possible, after resolution, to reintroduce the TKI, if needed by reducing the dose, and to continue the ICI. Otherwise, the blame falls on the ICI and treatment usually involves corticosteroids. Management also depends on the type of AE and its severity. In some cases (dysthyroidism), treatment with TKI/ICI may be continued. In other situations (cardiac or neurological toxicity), it should be discontinued from grade 1 and hospitalization and corticosteroid therapy should be considered immediately. In all cases, information and education are integral parts of the prevention and proper management of potential AEs., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Objectives: To determine the association between the FGFR3 mutation status and immuno-histochemistry (IHC) markers (p53 and Ki-67) in invasive bladder cancer (BC), and to analyze their prognostic value in a multicenter, multi-laboratory radical cystectomy (RC) cohort., Patients and Methods: We included 1058 cN0M0, chemotherapy-naive BC patients who underwent RC with pelvic lymph-node dissection at 8 hospitals. The specimens were reviewed by uro-pathologists. Mutations in the FGFR3 gene were examined using PCR-SNaPshot; p53 and Ki-67 expression were determined by standard IHC. FGFR3 mutation status as well as p53 (cut-off>10%) and Ki-67 (cut-off>20%) expression were correlated to clinicopathological parameters and disease specific survival (DSS)., Results: pT-stage was

Background: Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the urinary bladder (NCUB) is rare, accounting for < 1% of bladder cancer cases, with scarce reported data available., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data from patients with NCUB treated at French institutions. The objectives were to describe the patient characteristics, treatments received, and outcomes (ie, disease-free survival [DFS], progression-free survival, overall survival [OS]) and investigate the prognostic factors., Results: From 1997 to 2017, we included 236 patients, 173 with early-stage NCUB and 63 with advanced-stage NCUB. For those with early-stage disease, the median DFS was better for the patients who had received cisplatin-based chemotherapy compared with carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.46), with no difference found between the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.61-1.97). The median OS was 36 months (95% CI, 29-43 months) for stage I and II, 26 months (95% CI, 18 months to not reached) for stage IIIA, 16 months (95% CI, 12-21 months) for stage IIIB. The HR for stage IIIB compared with stage I/II was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.4). The DFS at 6 months was associated with OS (HR, 7.8; 95% CI, 4.1-15.0). For patients with metastases at diagnosis who had received chemotherapy, the median progression-free survival was 9 months (95% CI, 8-11) for first-line cisplatin and 6 months (95% CI, 4-13 months) for carboplatin; the median OS was 13 months (95% CI, 9-15 months). A high-risk Bajorin score (HR, 11.5; 95% CI, 1.2-112.6) and the use of carboplatin (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.03-4.96) were associated with worse outcomes., Conclusions: In early-stage disease, a shorter DFS was associated with worse OS, and the use of cisplatin was associated with better OS. For the patients with metastases at diagnosis, a high-risk Bajorin score and the use of carboplatin were associated with worse outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: About one-third of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have detectable metastases at diagnosis. Among them, bone is the second most frequent metastatic site. Treatment of metastatic RCC mostly relies on anti-angiogenic (AA) therapies and, more recently, immunotherapy. Skeletal-related events (SREs) can be prevented with bone-targeted therapies such as denosumab (Dmab), which has demonstrated superiority when compared with zoledronic acid in solid tumors. However, there is limited available data on Dmab toxicity in combination with AA therapies in patients with kidney cancer. The objective of this study was to retrospectively analyze the toxicity profile (mainly osteonecrosis of the jaw [ONJ] and hypocalcemia) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with Dmab and AA therapy combination., Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study among centers from the French Groupe d'Etudes des Tumeurs Uro Genitales (GETUG). Patients with bone metastases who received concurrently or sequentially AA therapy and Dmab were included in this study., Results: A total of 41 patients with mRCC were enrolled. Although no patient presented with severe hypocalcemia, ONJ occurred in 7 (17%) of 41 patients. Interestingly, all patients with ONJ received the Dmab and AA combination in the first line of treatment; among these patients, 3 patients had no risk factor other than the Dmab and AA combination., Conclusion: The incidence of ONJ was high in this real-life population of patients with mRCC treated with AA therapies combined with Dmab. This toxicity signal should warn physicians about this combination in the mRCC population., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: EGFR mutations cause inconsistent response to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). To better understand these features, we reviewed all cases of EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer collected in the Biomarkers France database., Patients and Methods: Of 17 664 patients, 1837 (11%) with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer were retrospectively analyzed for clinical and molecular characteristics. Results were correlated with survival and treatment response for the 848 stage IV patients., Results: EGFR exon 18, 19, 20 and 21 mutations were found in 102 (5.5%), 931 (51%), 102 (5.5%) and 702 (38%) patients, respectively. Over 50% of exon 18 and 20 mutated patients were smokers. The median follow-up was 51.7 months. EGFR mutation type was prognostic of overall survival (OS) versus wild-type {exon 19: hazard ratio (HR)=0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.64], P < 0.0001; exon 21: HR = 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61-0.95), P = 0.002; exon 20: HR = 1.56 (95% CI: 1.02-2.38), P = 0.004}. EGFR mutation type was prognostic of progression-free survival versus wild-type [exon 19: HR = 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49-0.78), P < 0.0001; exon 20: HR = 1.46 (95% CI: 0.96-2.21), P = 0.07]. First-line treatment choice did not influence OS in multivariate analysis. First-line TKI predicted improved progression-free survival versus chemotherapy [HR = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.53-0.85), P = 0.001]. OS was longer for del19 versus L858R, which was associated with better OS compared with other exon 21 mutations, including L861Q. TKI improved survival in patients with exon 18 mutations, while chemotherapy was more beneficial for exon 20-mutated patients., Conclusion: EGFR mutation type can inform the most appropriate treatment. Therapeutic schedule had no impact on OS in our study, although TKI should be prescribed in first-line considering the risk of missing the opportunity to use this treatment., (© The Author 2017. 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: In the past decade, adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after radical cystectomy (RC) was preferred worldwide for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. In this study we aimed to determine the outcome of patients who received AC and evaluated prognostic factors associated with survival., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 226 consecutive patients treated in 6 academic hospitals between 2000 and 2009. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for center to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were used., Results: The median age was 62.4 (range, 35-82) years. Patients had pT3/pT4 and/or pN+ in 180 (79.6%) and 168 patients (74.3%), respectively. Median lymph node (LN) density was 25% (range, 3.1-100). Median time between RC and AC was 61.5 (range, 18-162) days. Gemcitabine with cisplatin, gemcitabine with carboplatin, and MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) regimens were delivered in 161 (71.2%), 49 (21.7%), and 12 patients (5.3%) of patients, respectively. The median number of cycles was 4 (range, 1-6). Thirteen patients (5.7%) with LN metastases also received adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (ART). After a median follow-up of 4.2 years, 5-year overall survival (OS) was 40.7%. In multivariate analysis, pT ≥3 stage (HR, 1.73; P = .05), LN density >50% (HR, 1.94; P = .03), and number of AC cycles <4 (HR, 4.26; P = .001) were adverse prognostic factors for OS. ART (HR, 0.30; P = .05) tended to provide survival benefit., Conclusion: Classical prognostic features associated with survival are not modified by the use of AC. Patients who derived benefit from AC had a low LN density and received at least 4 cycles of treatment., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) is an actionable target in bladder cancer. Preclinical studies show that anti-FGFR3 treatment slows down tumor growth, suggesting that this tyrosine kinase receptor is a candidate for personalized bladder cancer treatment, particularly in patients with mutated FGFR3. We addressed tumor heterogeneity in a large multicenter, multi-laboratory study, as this may have significant impact on therapeutic response., Patients and Methods: We evaluated possible FGFR3 heterogeneity by the PCR-SNaPshot method in the superficial and deep compartments of tumors obtained by transurethral resection (TUR, n = 61) and in radical cystectomy (RC, n = 614) specimens and corresponding cancer-positive lymph nodes (LN+, n = 201)., Results: We found FGFR3 mutations in 13/34 (38%) T1 and 8/27 (30%) ≥T2-TUR samples, with 100% concordance between superficial and deeper parts in T1-TUR samples. Of eight FGFR3 mutant ≥T2-TUR samples, only 4 (50%) displayed the mutation in the deeper part. We found 67/614 (11%) FGFR3 mutations in RC specimens. FGFR3 mutation was associated with pN0 (P < 0.001) at RC. In 10/201 (5%) LN+, an FGFR3 mutation was found, all concordant with the corresponding RC specimen. In the remaining 191 cases, RC and LN+ were both wild type., Conclusions: FGFR3 mutation status seems promising to guide decision-making on adjuvant anti-FGFR3 therapy as it appeared homogeneous in RC and LN+. Based on the results of TUR, the deep part of the tumor needs to be assessed if neoadjuvant anti-FGFR3 treatment is considered. We conclude that studies on the heterogeneity of actionable molecular targets should precede clinical trials with these drugs in the perioperative setting., (© The Author 2016. 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: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions., Materials and Methods: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events., Results: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression)., Conclusions: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons., (© 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.)

Castration-resistant prostate cancer was subjected to a paradigm switch from hormone resistance to androgen deprivation therapy resistance during the last decade. Indeed, new therapeutics targeting the androgen receptor showed clinical efficacy in patients with progressive disease under castration. Thus, it is a proof that the AR remains a dominant driver of oncogenesis in earlier-called hormone resistant prostate cancer. This review summarizes the molecular mechanisms involved in castration-resistant prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2015 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Sunitinib was the first targeted therapy improving progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the first line of treatment. Classically, sunitinib is administered at a dose of 50 mg/day during four weeks followed by two weeks off (schedule 4/6). This schedule has two pitfalls: intermittent exposure with two weeks "off" and the increase in toxicity during the fourth week. Several alternative prescription schedules were studied with the aim of limiting the intensity of toxicity while maintaining efficacy. This review summarizes the published data on alternative schedules of sunitinib in terms of safety and efficacy. All articles and abstracts on alternative schedule of sunitinib in the mRCC were reviewed. Clinical trials were also searched. Studies evaluating the continuous schedule have not provided evidence of its superiority compared to the 4/6 schedules in terms of activity, tolerance or dose-intensity. Retrospective data of patients treated in a schedule two weeks of treatment "on" one week "off" (schedule 2/3) with sunitinib 50 mg/day show PFS that seem superior to those obtained with a schedule 4/ 6, while having a better safety profile. The alternating schedule of sunitinib 2/3 (50 mg/day) may be a better alternative to schedule 4/6 in terms of tolerance. If toxicity occurs with 50 mg/day on a schedule 4/6, it would probably offer a better alternative in terms of efficiency than dose reduction. The results of ongoing and future studies are expected to prospectively validate the concept.

Objectives: As a consequence of under-representation of elderly patients in clinical trials, the recommended dose of chemotherapy is often based on results observed in younger patients. We designed a risk-adapted, dose escalation study of weekly docetaxel in the first-line treatment of elderly patients with cancer in order to determine the optimal dose according to age, comorbidity and functional status., Patients and Methods: Sixty-eight patients aged 70 or more were stratified into three risk groups according to a combination of age, performance status, and comorbidity. The study was conducted using a standard phase I design with sequential cohorts of patients receiving docetaxel at increasing doses in each risk group., Results: The maximum tolerated dose was not reached in the intermediate-risk group and was 45mg/m(2)/week in the high-risk group. Because of a slow recruitment rate, it was not possible to conclude the trial in the good-risk category. Neutropenia, asthenia and diarrhea were the most frequently encountered severe toxicities., Conclusions: Docetaxel can be used at a dose of 40mg/m(2)/week as a first-line treatment for elderly patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer without excessive toxicity. The risk groups defined in the study are not able to accurately distinguish between subgroups of patients with divergent toxicity profiles., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2010, results of the TROPIC study demonstrated that, when compared to mitxantrone, the novel taxane cabazitaxel improved median overall survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progressed on or after docetaxel treatment. We report the data on efficacy and toxicity observed in the subgroup of patients included in the French centers. In this phase III randomized international trial, patients received prednisone and were treated with either 25 mg/m(2) cabazitaxel or 12 mg/m(2) mitoxantrone intravenously every three weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population. Among the 90 patients enrolled in France, the median overall survival was 18 months for the cabazitaxel arm versus 14.3 months for the mitoxantrone arm. An improvement in PFS was also observed, with a median of 1.4 months for the mitoxatrone arm compared to a median of 2.5 months for the cabazitaxel arm. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematologic with neutropenia, usually afebrile and digestive with 4 % of patients reporting diarrhea. These results are comparable to those reported for the overall population and the safety profile remains favorable without any toxic death related to cabazitaxel.

Background: In the evolution of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), patients present visceral metastases with or without neuroendocrine differentiation in 20% of cases., Patients and Methods: We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in mCRPC patients with either neuroendocrine differentiation defined by high serum levels of chromogranin A (CgA) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) or visceral metastases. Patients received the combination of carboplatin and etoposide every 3 weeks. Efficacy end points included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and neuroendocrine marker response, objective response and toxicity., Results: Of the 60 patients included from April 2005 to January 2008, 78.6% had bone metastases, 46.4% had lymph node involvement and 57.1% had liver and/or lung localizations. The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 46 patients with measurable disease. A neuroendocrine response was observed in 31% of cases for NSE and 7% for CgA. The PSA response rate was 8%. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related toxic effects were neutropenia (65.5%), thrombocytopenia (32.7%) and anemia (27.3%). There was 7.2% febrile neutropenia, with one toxicity-related death. The median follow-up was 9.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-27.1] and the median overall survival 9.6 months (95% CI 8.7-12.7)., Conclusion: The benefit-risk ratio of this regimen seems unfavorable due to poor response and high toxicity.

Advanced or metastatic renal carcinoma represents a frequent disease in oncologic practice. Few years ago, in immunotherapy era, treatments had quickly reached deadlock. New therapies targeting vascular endothelial growth factors and their receptors (VEGF-R), sorafenib, sunitinib and bevacizumab, and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), temsirolimus and everolimus, have modified these patients prognosis and their quality of life in a few years. Nevertheless, patients included in randomized trials presented severe inclusion criteria. Then in the daily practice, patients have distinctive characteristics which were not evaluated in large pivotal studies: poor performance status, older patients, renal dysfunction, cerebral metastases or non clear cell renal cancer. In published trials, a few data concerning these situations are reported, and these studies have often included small samples, were retrospective or not randomised. However compared to global population, tolerance have not been very different in geriatric patients, or patients with poor performance status, or with central neurological metastases, or with papillary and chromophobe sub-types. On the contrary progression free or overall survivals increases are more difficult to confirm. Also before starting treatment, ratio between potential benefit and possible toxicities have to be evaluated. In patients with renal insufficiency, VEGF receptor inhibitors seem to be cautiously initiated at reduced doses, and to be increased according to tolerance. Due to these poor proof levels, clinical trials are needed for these specific populations.

Radical cystectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection is the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, with 5-year survival rates not exceeding 60%. Consequently a multidisciplinary approach including perioperative chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy is required to improve these results. Data from clinical trials and meta-analyses with neoadjuvant chemotherapy have shown a significant benefit in overall survival, with a 5% absolute benefit at five years, provided cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is used. Reported trials do not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The current role of radiation therapy is limited to highly selected cases with a combination of external radiotherapy, partial cystectomy and interstitial brachytherapy.

Identification of prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma is very important today for three goals: providing patient information, giving appropriate treatments and selecting patients for adapted treatment schedules as well as new clinical trials. Prognostic factors in RCC include: anatomical (TNM classification), histological (Fuhrmann grade and histological subtype), clinical (symptoms and performance status) and molecular factors. For improving predicative accuracy of prognostic systems such as the TNM classification, new prognostic algorithms or nomograms have been designed combining independent prognostic variables. UISS and SSIGN are the 2 most effective prognostic systems within localized RCC. In metastatic disease, the two main systems that have been used for predicting response to immunotherapy are the model of the French Group of Immunotherapy and the Motzer model. With the arrivals of new molecular factors, these systems will perhaps have to evaluate: these new systems will require further validation as part of large prospective clinical trials.

Postorchidectomy management of stage I testis seminoma has evolved for many years. Three treatment options should be discussed after surgery. Surveillance tends toward taking a more significant place to avoid overtreatment, adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin has demonstrated its efficiency, and for some, preventive radiotherapy, the historical reference treatment, is losing momentum. Whatever the chosen orientation, long-term prognosis is excellent with overall survival closed to 100%. In this context, this review underlines the advantages and the drawbacks of the three attitudes but also the unknowns relative to each. Indeed, their knowledge is crucial for informing clearly and with an objective way. Without gold-standard, but with three therapeutic options available, informing our patients is the key so they make an informed choice in dialogue with the oncologist.

The daily management of urogenital cancers is currently based on prognostic classifications derived from the identification of independent clinical or biological indicators of overall survival. These classifications are used for patient stratification in clinical trials and definition of appropriate strategies according to prognostic groups. Their knowledge is therefore essential for optimizing treatment decisions. Metastatic germ cell tumours and renal cell cancers as well as localised prostate cancers are classical models for the development of such classifications. The emergence of targeted therapies and the identification of predictive parameters for treatment efficacy should represent a further step towards the emergence of individualized treatments in the near future.

Angiogenesis targeting with inhibitors of VEGF receptors is currently modifying in depth the treatment strategy of metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma. Although immunotherapy remains prescribed in selected patients with good prognosis, sunitinib and sorafenib are presently the most active agents in this malignancy. The results available, in terms of response as in terms of progression-free survival, argue in favour of the use of sunitinib in first line. The two agents have distinct toxicity profiles, which may lead in the future to select the treatment as a function of an individual patient basis. Preliminary results suggest the possibility of partial cross-resistance between them.