Search

Immunoglobulins for intravenous use (IVIgs) and subcutaneous use (SCIgs) can prevent recurrent and severe infections in patients with secondary antibody deficiencies that are frequently linked to haematological/oncological malignancies as well as other clinical conditions and their respective treatments. Even so, as IVIgs and SCIgs are costly and their supply is limited, their clinical use must be optimised. The aim of this position paper is to provide structured practical guidance on the optimal use of IVIgs and SCIgs in secondary antibody deficiencies, particularly in haematological and oncological practice. The authors agree that the occurrence of severe infections is a prerequisite for the use of IVIgs. Serum IgG levels in general as well as IgG subclass levels can be additional indicators of whether a patient could benefit from IVIgs. Responsiveness to vaccines can help to identify immunodeficiency. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or multiple myeloma who are receiving respective treatment, especially B-cell depletion therapy, but also some patients with autoimmune diseases are prone to antibody deficiencies and need IVIgs. For the optimal use of IVIgs and to maximise their potential benefit, the indication must be individually assessed for each patient. As a primary treatment goal, the authors define a sufficient prophylaxis of severe infections, which can be supported by normalising IgG levels. If the initiated treatment is insufficient or linked to intolerable adverse reactions, switching the product within the class of IVIgs or changing to a different batch of the same product can be considered. Pausing treatment can also be considered if there are no infections, which happens more frequently in summer, but treatment needs to be resumed once infections return. These structured recommendations for IVIg treatment in patients with secondary antibody deficiency may provide guidance for clinical practice and therefore help to allocate IVIgs to those who will benefit the most, without overusing valuable resources.

The management of prostate cancer is undergoing rapid changes in all disease settings. Novel imaging tools for diagnosis have been introduced, and the treatment of high-risk localized, locally advanced and metastatic disease has changed considerably in recent years. From clinical and health-economic perspectives, a rational and optimal use of the available options is of the utmost importance. While international guidelines list relevant pivotal trials and give recommendations for a variety of clinical scenarios, there is much room for interpretation, and several important questions remain highly debated. The goal of developing a national consensus on the use of these novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in order to improve disease management and eventually patient outcomes has prompted a Swiss consensus meeting. Experts from several specialties, including urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology and nuclear medicine, discussed and voted on questions of the current most important areas of uncertainty, including the staging and treatment of high-risk localized disease, treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and use of new options to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Approximately 420 men are diagnosed with germ-cell cancer (GCC) in Switzerland each year. Recent international guidelines outline management issues, but many aspects remain controversial in an area of highly individualised treatments. Even more than in other tumour types, in GCC the challenge is to choose exactly the correct treatment for an individual patient. Overtreatment in patients likely to be cured must be avoided to reduce long-term toxicities. On the other hand, treatment intensification is required in patients presenting with adverse prognostic factors. Therefore, referral to expert centres or consultations with an expert for a second opinion is strongly recommended. In 2020, Swiss experts discussed their strategies in a consensus meeting during the virtual Swiss Oncology and Haematology Congress (SOHC) in order to harmonise their concepts and to suggest optimal strategies for the management of GCC patients in Switzerland. Votes on controversial issues were obtained and are presented in this review wherever applicable.

BACKGROUND International guidelines state that bone-targeted agents such as denosumab or zoledronic acid at doses used for bone metastasis are not indicated for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) with bone metastases. Whereas denosumab has never been studied in this patient population, zoledronic acid has been shown to be ineffective in decreasing the risk for skeletal-related events. This study estimates the prevalence and economic consequences of real-world use of bone-targeted agents for mCSPC patients in Switzerland. METHODS To estimate the frequency of bone-targeted agent administration and skeletal-related events, data from a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey involving oncologists across Switzerland (SAKK 95/16) was combined with data from the Swiss National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER). Economic parameters were calculated from the perspective of the healthcare system over the median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression for the extrapolated patient group, using data from NICER. The cost calculation covered costs for bone-targeted agents, their administration and skeletal-related events. The time to PSA progression (33.2 months), as well as the probability and cost of skeletal-related events were derived from the literature. RESULTS The survey was answered by 86 physicians treating 417 patients, of whom 106 (25.4%) had prostate cancer, with 36 (34.0%) of these mCSPC. The majority of mCSPC patients (52.8%, n = 19) received bone-targeted agents monthly. Denosumab was the treatment of choice in 84.2% of patients (n = 16). Extrapolation using data from NICER indicated that 568 mCSPC patients may be treated with bone-targeted agents at doses used for bone metastasis every year in Switzerland, leading to estimated total costs of more than CHF 8.3 million over 33.2 months. Because of its more frequent prescription and higher price, it appears that almost 93% of the total costs can be attributed to denosumab. For both denosumab and zoledronic acid, the most expensive components were the cost of administration and the drug cost, making up more than 90% of the total costs, with the rest being costs of skeletal-related events. CONCLUSIONS This study found that the administration of bone-targeted agents in doses used for bone-metastatic diseases to prevent skeletal-related events is frequent in the setting of mCSPC and results in significant costs for the healthcare system.

AIMS OF THE STUDY Atezolizumab is an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma based on results from the IMvigor 210 and IMvigor211 phase II and III trials. The global SAUL study evaluated atezolizumab in a broader patient population more representative of real-world populations. Among approximately 1000 patients treated in SAUL, 25 were treated in Swiss oncology centres. We evaluated outcomes in these patients to provide a better understanding of atezolizumab treatment for urinary tract carcinoma in Swiss clinical practice. METHODS Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial or non-urothelial urinary tract carcinoma that had progressed during or after one to three prior therapies for inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic disease. Patient populations typically excluded from clinical trials (e.g., patients with renal impairment, treated central nervous system [CNS] metastases, stable controlled autoimmune disease or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2) were also eligible. All patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS All 25 Swiss patients had previously received a gemcitabine/platinum doublet. Disease had progressed within 12 months of platinum-based therapy in all but one patient, and 19 (76%) had received one prior line of therapy for metastatic disease. The median duration of atezolizumab therapy was six cycles (range 1–27) corresponding to 3.6 months. Five patients (20%) had received >20 cycles and four (16%) remained on treatment at the data cut-off. Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 13 patients (52%) and were considered to be treatment-related in four patients (16%; liver enzyme increases, musculoskeletal pain, diverticulitis and autoimmune hepatitis). There was one grade 4 AE (hypercalcaemia) and no grade 5 AEs. After median follow-up of 17.3 months, median OS was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3–not evaluable), the 1-year OS rate was 47% (95% CI 27–65%), the ORR was 12% (95% CI 3–31%) and the DCR was 40% (95% CI 21–61%). Durable clinical benefit (>1 year on treatment) was observed in seven patients (28%), including one with CNS metastases and one with small-cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS Atezolizumab is an active treatment option for platinum-pretreated urinary tract carcinoma, including patients with conditions that typically exclude them from clinical trials. (Trial registration no.: NCT02928406)

BACKGROUND The majority of germ cell tumour (GCT) patients can be cured by orchiectomy followed by active surveillance or subsequent systemic and/or local treatments. There are various guidelines for a structured follow-up including radiographic and clinical examinations. OBJECTIVE The Swiss Austrian German Testicular Cancer Cohort Study (SAG TCCS) prospectively evaluates follow-up, indicator of relapse and late toxicities. This is a descriptive analysis; we present baseline characteristics and treatment strategies for the first 299 patients with primary GCT or relapsed GCT after completion of treatment. RESULTS Of the patients included in this study, 192 (64.2%) had seminoma and 107 (35.8%) non-seminoma. Mean age was 41 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.7) for seminoma and 31 (SD 9.3) years for non-seminoma patients. Median tumour size was 3.5 cm (interquartile range 2.5­‒5.0 and 2.3‒4.5 in seminoma and non-seminoma, respectively) in both histological groups. Among seminoma patients, 81 (42.2%) had primary tumours >4cm; 154 (80.2%) seminoma patients had stage I, 26 (13.5%) stage II and 12 (6.3%) stage III disease. Fifty-seven (53.3%) non-seminoma tumours were stage I, 29 (27.1%) stage II and 21 (19.6%) stage III. Marker-positive disease was present in 58 (30.2%) seminoma patients and 78 (72.9%) non-seminoma patients. Of 154 stage I seminoma patients, 89 (57.8%) chose active surveillance and 65 (42.2%) adjuvant chemotherapy. Twenty-six (45.6%) stage I non-seminoma patients had high-risk disease; 23 of these were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 3 chose active surveillance. Among the 30 (52.6%) low risk stage I patients, all opted for active surveillance. Twelve (46.2%) stage II seminoma patients had radiotherapy, 14 (53.8%) were treated with three to four cycles of chemotherapy. All stage III seminoma patients, and all stage II and III non-seminoma patients were treated with three to four cycles of chemotherapy. Treatment decisions were made at the respective centre. Eleven patients did not receive therapy that conformed with guidelines. CONCLUSION It is important to enrol GCT patients in prospective studies in general, but also in follow-up studies to assess baseline characteristics, oncological outcome, and long-term toxicity and to validate the performance of follow-up schedules. This is the first time that the distribution of disease, detailed baseline characteristics and the respective treatment of men with GCT is collected in a prospective manner in German speaking countries (Switzerland, Austria and Germany) and therefore patterns of care have been evaluated. SAG TCCS results will inform on future modifications of surveillance schedules and follow-up procedures. ​ Trial registration number: NCT02229916 (Clinicaltrials.gov)