Search

Mitral annulus disjunction (MAD) is defined as a systolic displacement between the ventricular myocardium and the posterior mitral annulus supporting the posterior mitral leaflet. This structural abnormality is associated with the loss of mechanical annular function manifested as an abnormal systolic excursion of the leaflet hinge point into the left atrium but with maintained electrical function, separating the left atrium and ventricle electrophysiologically. The mitro-aortic fibrous continuity limits MAD anteriorly, between the aortic cusps and the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve. Consequently, MAD has been observed only at the insertion of the posterior leaflet. It can extend preferentially at the central posterior scallop. The first diagnostic modality aiding the diagnosis is transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), although in some cases adjunctive cardiac imaging modality might be suggested. MAD carries a strong association with malignant ventricular arrhythmogenesis and a profound predisposition for sudden cardiac death (SCD). In this context, a thorough investigation of this morphological and functional abnormality is vital in estimating the risk assessment and stratification for optimal management and elimination of the risk of the patient for SCD. Based on the current scientific data and literature, we will discuss the diagnosis, clinical implications, risk stratification, and therapeutic management of MAD.

Background: This detailed analysis further characterizes the safety profile of talazoparib plus enzalutamide in the ongoing randomized, phase III TALAPRO-2 study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In both the all-comers and homologous recombination repair (HRR)-deficient populations, talazoparib plus enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebo plus enzalutamide., Methods: The talazoparib plus enzalutamide safety populations in TALAPRO-2 included 398 patients from cohort 1 (all-comers, unselected for HRR gene alterations) and 198 patients from the combined HRR-deficient population (patients from the all-comers population with HRR gene alterations plus subsequently enrolled patients with HRR gene alterations; cohort 2). Patients received talazoparib 0.5 mg (0.35 mg, moderate renal impairment) and enzalutamide 160 mg once daily. Safety analyses evaluated common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), their type, severity, timing, seriousness, and relationship to study treatment., Results: In the all-comers (n = 398) and HRR-deficient populations (n = 198), all-cause grade 3/4 (G3/4) TEAEs with talazoparib plus enzalutamide were reported in 71.9 % and 66.2 % of patients, respectively. Most common G3/4 hematologic TEAEs were anemia (46.7 % and 40.9 %, respectively), neutropenia (18.3 % and 18.7 %), and thrombocytopenia (7.3 % and 7.1 %). Median time to event was 3.3 and 3.3 months for G3/4 anemia, 2.3 and 2.3 months for G3/4 neutropenia, and 2.3 and 1.5 months for G3/4 thrombocytopenia. Maximum hemoglobin reduction occurred after 13 and 15 weeks of treatment. 18.8 % and 10.1 % of patients discontinued talazoparib. TEAEs were managed with dose interruption (62.1 % and 57.6 %), reduction (52.8 % and 52.0 %), hematologic supportive care (13.1 % and 10.6 %), and packed red blood cell transfusions (39.2 % and 35.9 %)., Conclusion: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a generally manageable safety profile in patients with mCRPC within the all-comers and the HRR-deficient populations., Gov Identifier: NCT03395197., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Arun A. Azad reports honoraria from Aculeus Therapeutics, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Noxopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telix Pharmaceuticals, and Tolmar; consulting fees from Aculeus Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, and Novartis; participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Arvinas, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Noxopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telix, and Tolmar; participation on a data safety monitoring board for OncoSec; research funding (institution unless stated otherwise) from Aptevo Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma (investigator), AstraZeneca (investigator), Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Hinova Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck Serono (investigator), Merck Serono (institutional), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Synthorx; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hinova Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Tolmar; and support for medical writing services from Astellas Pharma, Exelixis, and Pfizer; he is Chair of the Urologic Oncology Group for the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, and Chair of the Translational Research Subcommittee and on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the ANZUP Cancer Trials Group. Karim Fizazi reports honoraria (institution) for participation in advisory boards and talks from Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and honoraria (personal) for participation in advisory boards from Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Nobuaki Matsubara reports honoraria (personal) from Sanofi; research funding (institution) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, PRA Health Science, Roche, Seagen, Taiho, and Takeda; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses (personal) from Pfizer. Fred Saad reports a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Janssen Oncology, Knight Therapeutics, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from AbbVie, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and research funding to their institution from Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Ugo De Giorgi reports a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dompé Farmaceutici, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sanofi; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Ipsen and Pfizer. Jae Young Joung declares no competing interests. Peter C. C. Fong reports a consulting or advisory role for MSD and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Pfizer. Robert J. Jones reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Bayer and Janssen. Stefanie Zschäbitz reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen (personal and institution), Astellas Pharma (personal and institution), Bayer (personal and institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (personal and institution), Eisai (personal), Gilead Sciences (personal), Janssen (personal), Merck Serono (personal and institution), MSD (institution), Novartis (personal), and Pfizer (personal and institution); participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen (personal and institution), Bayer (personal and institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (institution), Eisai (personal), Gilead Sciences (personal), Ipsen (personal), Janssen (personal), Merck Serono (personal and institution), MSD (institution), Novartis (personal), and Pfizer (institution); research funding (institution) from Eisai; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, and Pfizer. Jan Oldenburg reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS Norway, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Astellas Pharma. Neal D. Shore reports a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Alessa Therapeutics, Akido, Amgen, Arquer, Asieris, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CG Oncology, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, Ferring, FIZE Medical, Foundation Medicine, GenesisCare, Genentech, Guardant Health, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Invitae, Janssen, Lantheus, Lilly, Mdxhealth, Merck, Minomic, Myovant Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Nymox, Pacific Edge Biotechnology, Pfizer, Photocure, PlatformQ, ProFound, Promaxo, Propella Therapeutics, Protara, Sanofi, Sesen Bio, Specialty Networks, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Tolmar, UroGen Pharma, Vaxiion, and Vessi; providing expert testimony for Ferring; and leadership or other fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group with Photocure. Curtis Dunshee reports participation on advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Laekna Therapeutics, Myovant Sciences, and Pfizer. Joan Carles reports a consulting or advisory role for Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; participation in speakers’ bureaus for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson; research funding (institution) from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca AB, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Bayer AG, Blueprint Medicines, BN ImmunoTherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim España SA, Bristol Myers Squibb International Corporation, Clovis Oncology, Cougar Biotechnology, Deciphera, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag International NV, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Laboratoires Leurquin Mediolanum, Lilly, MedImmune, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Novartis Farmacéutica SA, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis GmbH, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, and Teva; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and Roche. Andre P. Fay reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; stock or stock options in Brazilian Information Oncology; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CAPES – CNPq, Foundation Medicine, Ipsen, MSD, and Roche; and travel, accommodations and/or expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Xun Lin, Liza DeAnnuntis, and Michael A. Zielinski are employees of Pfizer and may hold Pfizer stock/stock options. Nicola Di Santo is a former employee of Pfizer and may hold Pfizer stock/stock options. Neeraj Agarwal (lifetime disclosures): No personal COIs since April 15, 2021. Consultancy to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics. Research funding to institution (lifetime): Arvinas, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, CRISPR, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lava, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, Neoleukin, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, ORIC, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Telix, and TRACON., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations and fusions are relevant biomarkers in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, the prevalence of genomic alterations and their impact on clinical outcomes in a Latin American population remains unknown. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of FGFR mutations and/or fusions in patients with mUC in Latin America (LATAM) and its association with clinicopathological characteristics, Bellmunt's prognostic model, and survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2019 of patients with mUC from several LACOG LATAM institutions. FGFR alterations were analyzed by real-time PCR and/or next-generation sequencing in tumor samples and clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes data were collected. The prevalence of FGFR, patient characteristics, and treatment in real-world settings were summarized. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations of FGFR mutation and/or fusion status with median overall survival (mOS), median time to treatment failure (mTTF), and clinicopathological characteristics., Results: In total, 222 patients were screened. Of these, 196 patients were considered eligible and were included in the analysis. FGFR mutations and/or fusions were found in 35 (17.9%) patients. There was no statistical difference in mOS and mTTF in FGFR-altered and non-altered patients (13.1 vs. 16.8 months, P = .20 and 3.9 vs. 4.1 months, P = .96, respectively). Bellmunt's prognostic model correctly predicted overall survival (P = .049)., Conclusions: This is the largest study evaluating the prevalence of FGFR alterations in patients with mUC in the LATAM population. FGFR alterations in mUC were found in 17.9% of the patients, and the presence of this biomarker was not associated with OS. We validated Bellmunt's prognostic model in this cohort., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Gustavo Werutsky reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) is a rare malignancy. However, in developing countries the incidence rate is higher. The understanding of molecular alterations is essential for evaluating possible targets for more effective systemic therapies., Methods: We retrospectively collected clinical data of metastatic PSCC (mPSCC) patients who had received at least one prior systemic treatment from 3 Brazilian hospitals. Tumor samples were evaluated using the next-generation sequencing (NGS) Foundation One DX and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The objective was to identify and describe somatic genomic alterations known to be functional or pathogenic and their association with survival outcomes., Results: Twenty-three patients were identified, 22 and 18 patients had tumor samples analyzed by IHC and NGS, respectively. PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 1%) was positive in 14 patients (63.6%). Regarding the genomic alterations, 16 patients (88.9%) had some clinically relevant genomic alterations. TP53, TERT, CDKN2A, PIK3CA, NOTCH1, and CDKN2B loss were identified in 66.7%, 50%, 50%, 33.3%, 27.8%, and 22.2% of the patients, respectively. No MSI or TMB high (≥10 mutations/MB) cases were identified. NOTCH1 mutation was identified only in HPV-negative patients and it was associated with worse OS (yes: 5.5 vs no: 12.8 months, P = .049) and progression-free survival (yes: 5.5 vs no: 11.7 months, P = .032)., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that molecular alterations in mPSCC from developing countries are similar to those from developed countries. Predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy response such as TMB high or MSI were not identified. Specific gene mutations may identify patients with worse prognoses and open new avenues for therapeutic development., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: To analyze marital outcomes, divorce or separation, and its association with demographic, socioeconomic, and clinicopathological factors among breast cancer (BC) survivors after 2-years of diagnosis., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of marital status at baseline and at years 1 and 2 of follow-up of women aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with invasive BC participating in the AMAZONA III (GBECAM0115) study. The BC diagnosis occurred between January 2016 and March 2018 at 23 institutions in Brazil., Results: Of the 2974 women enrolled in AMAZONA III, 599 were married or living under common law at baseline. Divorce or separation occurred in 35 (5.8%) patients at 2 years of follow-up. In the multivariate analysis, public health insurance coverage was associated with a higher risk of marital status change (8.25% vs. 2.79%, RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.39 - 7.03, p = 0.007). Women who underwent mastectomy, adenomastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy were associated with a higher risk of divorce or separation (8.1% vs. 4.49%, RR 1.97, 95 CI 1.04 - 3.72, p = 0.0366) than those who underwent breast-conserving surgery., Conclusion: Women covered by the public health system and those who underwent mastectomy, adenomastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy were associated with a higher risk of divorce or separation. This evidence further supports the idea that long-term marital stability is associated with a complex interplay between socioeconomic conditions and stressors, such as BC diagnosis and treatment. ClinicalTrials Registration: NCT02663973., Competing Interests: Conflicts to interest: none to declare

Background and Objective: Recent clinical trials have shown improvement in progression-free survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treated with combination poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT). Regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan have recently approved this combination therapy for mPC. Common adverse events (AEs) include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and anemia. Nuanced AE management guidance for these combinations is lacking. The panel objective was to develop expert consensus on AE management in patients with mPC treated with the combination PARPi + NHT., Methods: The RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi Panel method was used. AEs were defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Twelve experts (seven medical oncologists, one advanced practice registered nurse, three urologists, and one patient advocate) reviewed the relevant literature; independently rated initial AE management options for the agent suspected of causing the AE for 419 patient scenarios on a 1-9 scale; discussed areas of agreement (AoAs) and disagreement (AoDs) at a March 2023 meeting; and repeated these ratings following the meeting. Second-round ratings formed the basis of guidelines., Key Findings and Limitations: AoDs decreased from 41% to 21% between the first and second round ratings, with agreement on at least one management strategy for every AE. AoAs included the following: (1) continue therapy with symptomatic treatment for patients with mild AEs; (2) for moderate fatigue, recommend nonpharmacologic treatment, hold treatment temporarily, and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; (3) for severe nausea or any degree of vomiting where symptomatic treatment fails, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; and (4) for hemoglobin 7.1-8.0 g/dl and symptoms of anemia, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose after red blood cell transfusion., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: This expert guidance can support management of AEs in patients with mPC receiving combination PARPi + NHT therapy., Patient Summary: A panel of experts developed guidelines for adverse event (AE) management in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with a combination of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and novel hormonal therapy. For mild AEs, continuation of cancer therapy along with symptomatic treatment is recommended. For moderate or severe AEs, cancer therapy should be stopped temporarily and restarted at the same or a reduced dose when AE resolves., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: There is an ongoing debate as to whether sex could be associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) benefit. Existing literature data reveal contradictory results, and data on first-line immune combinations are lacking., Method: This was a real-world, multicenter, international, observational study to determine the sex effects on the clinical outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with immuno-oncology combinations as first-line therapy., Results: A total of 1827 mRCC patients from 71 cancer centers in 21 countries were included. The median OS was 38.7 months (95% CI 32.7-44.2) in the overall study population: 40.0 months (95% CI 32.7-51.6) in males and 38.7 months (95% CI 26.4-41.0) in females (p = 0.202). The median OS was higher in males vs. females in patients aged 18-49y (36.9 months, 95% CI 29.0-51.6, vs. 24.8 months, 95% CI 16.8-40.4, p = 0.426, with + 19% of 2y-OS rate, 72% vs. 53%, p = 0.006), in the clear cell histology subgroup (44.2 months, 95% CI 35.8-55.7, vs. 38.7 months, 95% CI 26.0-41.0, p = 0.047), and in patients with sarcomatoid differentiation (34.4 months, 95% CI 26.4-59.0, vs. 15.3 months, 95% CI 8.9-41.0, p < 0.001). Sex female was an independent negative prognostic factor in the sarcomatoid population (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15 - 2.57, p = 0.008)., Conclusions: Although the female's innate and adaptive immunity has been observed to be more active than the male's, women in the subgroup of clear cell histology, sarcomatoid differentiation, and those under 50 years of age showed shorter OS than males., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors., Results: In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil., Methods: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence., Results: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease., Conclusion: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Systemic treatment with immune combinations is the gold standard for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) worldwide. The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is a prognostic marker for several types of malignant neoplasms, including mRCC, in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Data regarding the prognostic value of the SII in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy are scarce and controversial.  METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of patients with mRCC from 56 centers in 18 countries. SII (Platelet × Neutrophil/Lymphocyte count) was calculated prior to the first systemic treatment and cut-off was defined by a survival receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The primary objective of our retrospective study was to assess the outcomes of patients treated with first-line immunotherapy.  RESULTS: Data from 1034 mRCC patients was collected and included in this analysis. The SII cut-off value was 1265. After a follow-up of 26.7 months, and the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 39.8 and 15.7 months, respectively. According to SII (low vs. high), patients with low-SII had longer OS (55.7 vs. 22.2 months, P < .001), better PFS (20.8 vs. 8.5 months, P < .001), and higher overall response rate (52 vs. 37%, P = .033)., Conclusion: A high SII is associated with poor oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC. SII could be an easily accessible prognostic indicator for use in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Disclosure Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro: Research support was provided by Janssen (Merck Sharp Dome). Honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology; Ondrej Fiala: Received honoraria from Roche, Janssen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, GSK, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project; Francesco Massari: Personal fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer; Jindrich Kopecky: Consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Merck, and Novartis; Jakub Kuchartz: Honoraria: Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Research Funding: Novartis; Enrique Grande: Honoraria: Adacap, AMGEN, Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caris Life Sciences, Celgene, Clovis-Oncology, Eisai, Eusa Pharma, Genetracer, Guardant Health, HRA-Pharma, IPSEN, ITM-Radiopharma, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, ONCODNA (Biosequence), Palex, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Servier, Taiho, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. Funding: Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; Maria T. Bourlon: Honoraria/advisory board: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Funding: Pfizer; Javier Molina-Cerrillo: Consultant, advisory, or speaker roles for IPSEN, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Eisai, MSD, and BMS. JMC has received research grants from Pfizer, IPSEN, Janssen, and Roche; Tomas Buchler: Research support: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck KGaA, MSD, and Novartis; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Janssen, and Sanofi/Aventis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Accord, MSD, and Pfizer; Emmanuel Seront: Consultancy: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen; Aristotelis Bamias: Honoraria, Advisory, Research support: Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BMS, and Ipsen; Camillo Porta: Honoraria: Angelini Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD; Andre Poisl Fay: Honoraria: Pfizer, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen. Scientific Advisory Board: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD. Research Grant: CAPES - CNPq, BMS, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, Foundation Medicine, Ipsen. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All other authors do not have relationships to disclose. All authors except Ondrej Fiala are unrelated to this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies have shown improved survival among individuals with cancer with higher levels of social support. Few studies have investigated social support and overall survival (OS) in individuals with advanced prostate cancer in an international cohort. We investigated the associations of marital status and living arrangements with OS among individuals with advanced prostate cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN)., Methods: IRONMAN is enrolling participants diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, mHSPC; castration-resistant prostate cancer, CRPC) from 16 countries. Participants in this analysis were recruited between July 2017 and January 2023. Adjusting for demographics and tumor characteristics, the associations were estimated using Cox regression and stratified by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC), age (<70, ≥70 years), and continent of enrollment (North America, Europe, Other)., Results: We included 2,119 participants with advanced prostate cancer, of whom 427 died during up to 5 years of follow-up (median 6 months). Two-thirds had mHSPC. Most were married/in a civil partnership (79%) and 6% were widowed. Very few married participants were living alone (1%), while most unmarried participants were living alone (70%). Married participants had better OS than unmarried participants [adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.02]. Widowed participants had the worst survival compared with married individuals (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.22-2.94)., Conclusions: Among those with advanced prostate cancer, unmarried and widowed participants had worse OS compared with married participants., Impact: This research highlighted the importance of social support in OS within this vulnerable population., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

What Is This Summary About?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide., What Is Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer., What Are the Aims of the Talapro-2 Trial?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study., What Are the Key Takeaways?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Preclinical evidence has suggested an interplay between the androgen receptor, which largely drives the growth of prostate cancer cells, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. This association provides a rationale for their co-inhibition for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), an area of unmet medical need. The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study investigated combining the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment of mCRPC. Patients were prospectively assessed for tumor alterations in DNA damage response genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Two cohorts were enrolled sequentially: an all-comers cohort that was enrolled first (cohort 1; N = 805 (169 were HRR-deficient)), followed by an HRR-deficient-only cohort (cohort 2; N = 230). We present results from the alpha-controlled primary analysis for the combined HRR-deficient population (N = 399). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to talazoparib or placebo, plus enzalutamide. The primary endpoint, radiographic progression-free survival, was met (median not reached at the time of the analysis for the talazoparib group versus 13.8 months for the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature but favor talazoparib (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.03; P = 0.07). Common adverse events in the talazoparib group were anemia, fatigue and neutropenia. Combining talazoparib with enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC harboring HRR gene alterations, supporting talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a potential first-line treatment for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395197 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Treatment of metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mccRCC) has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, without improvement in the development of biomarkers. Recently, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been validated as a prognostic and predictive tool for many solid tumors., Objective: We evaluated CTCs in blood samples obtained from patients diagnosed with mccRCC. Comparisons of CTC counts, protein expression profiling, and DNA mutants were made in relation to overall survival and progression-free survival., Methods: CTCs were isolated from 10 mL blood samples using the ISET® system (Isolation by SizE of Tumor Cells; Rarecells, France) and counted. Protein expression was evaluated in immunocytochemistry assays. DNA mutations were identified with next generation sequencing (NGS)., Results: Blood samples (10 mL) were collected from 12 patients with mccRCC before the start of first-line systemic therapy, and again 30 and 60 days after the start of treatment. All 12 patients had CTCs detected at baseline (median, 1.5 CTCs/mL; range: 0.25-7.75). Patients with CTC counts greater than the median had two or more metastatic sites and exhibited worse progression-free survival (19.7 months) compared to those with CTC counts less than the median (31.1 months). Disease progression was observed in 7/12 patients during the study. Five of these patients had baseline CTC counts greater than the median, one had higher CTC levels at the second blood collection, and one patient had CTCs present at 1 CTC/mL which positively stained for PD-L1, N-cadherin, VEGF, and SETD2. CTC DNA from six patients with worse outcomes was subjected to NGS. However, no conclusions could be made due to the low variant allele frequencies., Conclusion: Detection of CTCs in patients with mccRCC receiving first-line treatment is a feasible tool with prognostic potential since increased numbers of CTCs were found to be associated with metastasis and disease progression., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Purpose: The genomic underpinnings of inherited lung cancer risk are poorly understood. This prospective study characterized the clinical phenotype of patients and families with germline EGFR pathogenic variants (PVs)., Methods: The Investigating Hereditary Risk from T790M study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01754025) enrolled patients with lung cancer whose tumor profiling harbored possible germline EGFR PVs and their relatives, either in person or remotely, providing germline testing and follow-up., Results: A total of 141 participants were enrolled over a 5-year period, 100 (71%) remotely. Based upon previous genotyping, 116 participants from 59 kindreds were tested for EGFR T790M, demonstrating a pattern of Mendelian inheritance with variable lung cancer penetrance. In confirmed or obligate carriers of a germline EGFR PV from 39 different kindreds, 50/91 (55%) were affected with lung cancer with 34/65 (52%) diagnosed by age 60 years. Somatic testing of lung cancers in carriers revealed that 35 of 37 (95%) had an EGFR driver comutation. Among 36 germline carriers without a cancer diagnosis, 15 had computed tomography (CT) imaging and nine had lung nodules, including a 28-year-old with >10 lung nodules. Given geographic enrichment of germline EGFR T790M in the southeast United States, genome-wide haplotyping of 46 germline carriers was performed and identified a 4.1-Mb haplotype shared by 41 (89%), estimated to originate 223-279 years ago., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective description of familial EGFR -mutant lung cancer, identifying a recent founder germline EGFR T790M variant enriched in the Southeast United States. The high prevalence of EGFR -driver lung adenocarcinomas and lung nodules in germline carriers supports effort to identify affected patients and family members for investigation of CT-based screening for these high-risk individuals.

Background: Concomitant medications may potentially affect the outcome of cancer patients. In this sub-analysis of the ARON-2 real-world study (NCT05290038), we aimed to assess the impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), statins, or metformin on outcome of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) receiving second-line pembrolizumab., Methods: We collected data from the hospital medical records of patients with mUC treated with pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at 87 institutions from 22 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model., Results: A total of 802 patients were eligible for this retrospective study; the median follow-up time was 15.3 months. PPI users compared to non-users showed inferior PFS (4.5 vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.002) and OS (8.7 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Concomitant PPI use remained a significant predictor of PFS and OS after multivariate Cox analysis. The use of statins or metformin was not associated with response or survival., Conclusions: Our study results suggest a significant prognostic impact of concomitant PPI use in mUC patients receiving pembrolizumab in the real-world context. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective:  Breast cancer (BC) biomarkers, such as hormone receptors expression, are crucial to guide therapy in BC patients. Antiandrogens have been studied in BC; however, limited data are available on androgen receptor (AR) expression test methodology. We aim to report the core needle biopsy (CNB) accuracy for AR expression in BC., Methods:  Patients diagnosed with stage I-III invasive BC from a single institution were included. Androgen receptor expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using 1 and 10% cutoff and the AR expression in surgical specimens (SS) was the gold standard. Kappa coefficients were used to evaluate the intraprocedural agreement., Results:  A total of 72 patients were included, with a mean age of 61 years old and 84% were Luminal A or B tumors. The prevalence of AR expression in all BC samples was 87.5% using a cutoff ≥ 10% in SS. With a cutoff value ≥ 1%, CNB had an accuracy of 95.8% (Kappa value = 0.645; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.272-1.000; p  < 0.001) and 86.1% (Kappa value = 0.365; 95% CI: 0.052-0.679; p  < 0.001) when ≥ 10% cutoff was used for AR positivity. Androgen receptor expression in CNB (cutoff ≥ 1%) had a sensitivity of 98.5%, specificity of 60%, positive predictive value of 97.0%, and a negative predictive value of 76.9% in the detection of AR expression in SS., Conclusion:  Core needle biopsy has good accuracy in evaluating AR expression in BC. The accuracy of CNB decreases with higher cutoff values for AR positivity., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Background: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing., Findings: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group., Interpretation: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations., Funding: Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NA has received an honorarium for consultancy since May, 2020, from the following: Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AVEO, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lilly, and MEI Pharma, and research funding (institution) from Arvinas, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lava, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Neoleukin, Novartis, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, Takeda, and TRACON. AAA reports honoraria from Aculeus Therapeutics, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Noxopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telix Pharmaceuticals, and Tolmar; consulting fees from Aculeus Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, and Novartis; participation on advisory boards for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Noxopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telix, and Tolmar; participation on a data safety monitoring board for OncoSec; research funding (institution unless stated otherwise) from Aptevo Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma (investigator), AstraZeneca (investigator), Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Hinova Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck Serono (investigator), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Synthorx; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Tolmar; and receiving medical writing services from Astellas Pharma, Exelixis, and Pfizer; he is Chair of the Urologic Oncology Group for the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, and Chair of the Translational Research Subcommittee and on the Scientific Advisory Committee for the ANZUP Cancer Trials Group. JC reports a consulting or advisory role for Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; participation in speakers' bureau for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and Johnson & Johnson; research funding (institution) from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, BN ImmunoTherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim España, Bristol Myers Squibb International Corporation, Clovis Oncology, Cougar Biotechnology, Deciphera, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag International, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Laboratoires Leurquin Mediolanum, Lilly, MedImmune, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, and Teva; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and Roche. APF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; stock or stock options in Brazilian Information Oncology; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CAPES – CNPq, Foundation Medicine, Ipsen, MSD, and Roche; and travel, accommodations and/or expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. NM reports honoraria (personal) from Sanofi; research funding (institution) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, PRA Health Science, Roche, Seagen, Taiho, and Takeda; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses (personal) from Pfizer. DH reports honoraria (personal) from Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. UDG reports a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Dompé Farmaceutici, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and PharmaMar; research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sanofi; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Ipsen and Pfizer. PCCF reports a consulting or advisory role for MSD and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Pfizer. RJJ reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Bayer and Janssen. NDS reports a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Alessa Therapeutics, Akido, Amgen, Arquer, Asieris, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CG Oncology, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Exact Sciences, FerGene, FIZE Medical, Foundation Medicine, GenesisCare, Genentech, Guardant Ferring, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Invitae, Janssen, Lantheus, Lilly, Mdxhealth, Merck, Minomic, Myovant Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Nymox, Pacific Edge Biotechnology, Pfizer, Photocure, PlatformQ, Profound, Promaxo, Propella Therapeutics, Protara, Sanofi, Sesen Bio, Speciality Networks, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Tolmar, UroGen Pharma, Vaxiion, and Vessi; providing expert testimony for Ferring; and leadership or other fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group with Photocure. CD reports participation on advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Laekna Therapeutics, Myovant Sciences, and Pfizer. SZ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen (personal and institution), Bayer, (personal and institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (institution), Eisai (personal), Janssen (personal), MSD (institution), Novartis (personal), and Pfizer (institution); participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen (personal and institution), Bayer (personal and institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (institution), Eisai (personal), Janssen (personal), MSD (institution), Novartis (personal), and Pfizer (institution); research funding (institution) from Eisai; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer. JO reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS Norway, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Astellas Pharma. XL, CGH, NDiS, and FZ are employees of Pfizer and may hold Pfizer stock/stock options. KF reports honoraria (institution) for participation in advisory boards and talks from Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and honoraria (personal) for participation in advisory boards from Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Germ-cell tumors (GCTs) are the most common malignancy in young men. There is a paucity of data on GCTs in developing countries. LACOG 0515 study aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with GCTs from Brazilian cancer centers., Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating male patients diagnosed with GCTs from 2000 to 2018 in 13 Brazilian hospitals. We described baseline characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 1232 patients were included, with a median age of 30 years. Histology was seminoma in 47.1% and non-seminoma GCT (NSGCT) in 52.9%. The primary tumor site was testis in 96.5%. At diagnosis, clinical stage I was present in 68.1% and 34.7% and clinical stages IS/II/III in 31.9% and 65.2% of patients with seminoma and NSCGT, respectively. Following orchiectomy, 55.2% of patients with clinical stage I were managed with surveillance. The 5-year disease-free survival rates among patients with stage I were 98.0% in seminoma and 92.3% in NSGCT, with 5-year OS of 99.6% and 97.6%, respectively. Among patients with advanced disease (IS, II, and III), the 5-year PFS were 88.7% in seminoma and 68.7% in NSGCT, with 5y-OS of 97.6% and 82.8%, respectively., Conclusion: This is the largest Brazilian cohort of GCTs. Our results show a high rate of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with clinical stage I. Although our data demonstrate slightly inferior PFS compared with the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group and other contemporary series, the OS rates were similar., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is an important clinical stage of prostate cancer, prior to morbidity and mortality from clinical metastases. In particular, the introduction of novel androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) has changed the therapeutic landscape in nmCRPC. Given recent developments in this field, we update our recommendations for the management of nmCRPC., Methods: A panel of 51 invited medical oncologists and urologists convened in May of 2021 with the aim of discussing and providing recommendations regarding the most relevant issues concerning staging methods, antineoplastic therapy, osteoclast-targeted therapy, and patient follow-up in nmCRPC. Panel members considered the available evidence and their practical experience to address the 73 multiple-choice questions presented., Results: Key recommendations and findings include the reliance on prostate-specific antigen doubling time for treatment decisions, the absence of a clear preference between conventional and novel (i.e., positron-emission tomography-based) imaging techniques, the increasing role of ARSis in various settings, the general view that ARSis have similar efficacy. Panelists highlighted the slight preference for darolutamide, when safety is of greater concern, and a continued need to develop high-level evidence to guide the intensity of follow-up in this subset of prostate cancer., Discussion: Despite the limitations associated with a consensus panel, the topics addressed are relevant in current practice, and the recommendations can help practicing clinicians to provide state-of-the-art treatment to patients with nmCRPC in Brazil and other countries with similar healthcare settings., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer worldwide. The prognosis and survival of these patients are directly related to the diagnostic stage. Even so, the gold standard screening method (mammography) has a long waiting period, high rates of false positives, anxiety for patients, and consequently delays the diagnosis by core needle biopsy (invasive method). Alternatively, the Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy is a noninvasive, low-cost, rapid, and reagent-free technique that generates the spectral metabolomic profile of biomolecules. This makes it possible to assess systemic repercussions, such as the BC carcinogenesis process. Blood plasma samples (n = 56 BC and n = 18 controls) were analyzed in the spectrophotometer in the ATR-FTIR mode. For the exploratory analysis of the data, interval Principal Component Analysis (iPCA) was used, and for predictive chemometric modeling, the Orthogonal Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) algorithm with validation by leave-one-out cross-validation. iPCA in the region of 1118-1052 cm -1 (predominantly DNA/RNA bands) showed significant clustering of molecular subtypes and control. The OPLS-DA model achieved 100% accuracy with only 1 latent variable and Root Mean Square Error of Cross-Validation (RMSECV) < 0.005 for all molecular subtypes and control. The wavenumbers (cm -1 ) with the highest iPCA peaks (loadings: 1117, 1089, 1081, 1075, 1057, and 1052) were used as input to MANOVA (Wilks' Lambda, p < 0.001 between molecular subtypes and control). The rapid and low-cost detection of BC molecular subtypes by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy would plausibly allow initial screening and clinical management, improving prognosis, reducing mortality and costs for the health system., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To describe a newly established international registry recruiting diverse patients with advanced prostate cancer across academic and community practices to address unmet needs in this population., Patients and Methods: Initiated in 2017, IRONMAN (International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer) is a prospective cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer. The study will enroll 5,000 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), recruited from Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study is collecting datatypes to study variation in care and treatment of advanced prostate cancer across countries and across academic, community-based, and government practices with a focus on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, epidemiologic data, biologic subtypes, and clinician questionnaires., Results: Through July 2022, 2,682 eligible patients were enrolled in 11 of 12 active countries. Sixty-six percent of patients have mHSPC, and 34% have CRPC. On the basis of self-report, 11% of patients are Black and 9% are Hispanic. Five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers are enrolling patients. Globally, 23% of patients report being veterans of military service., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first international cohort of people newly diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer designed to describe variations in patient management, experiences, and outcomes. IRONMAN aims to identify optimal treatment sequences to improve survival, understand patient-reported outcomes, and explore novel biomarkers to understand treatment resistance mechanisms. Insights from IRONMAN will inform and guide future clinical management of people with mHSPC and CRPC. This cohort study will provide real-world evidence to facilitate a better understanding of the survivorship of people with advanced prostate cancer.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 ICI has been recently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk MIUC patients. However, conflicting data from another randomized controlled trial (RCT) with atezolizumab makes the benefit of this treatment uncertain. We performed a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) with ICI adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk MIUC. Considering the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement, a systematic search was performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE up to October 30, 2021. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.4 software in intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in predetermined subgroups. Two RCTRCT, with a total of 1518 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Systemic immunotherapy was atezolizumab for 406 patients and nivolumab for 353 patients. In the ITT population there was a nonsignificant benefit with the systemic adjuvant immunotherapy (HR:0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.00; z = 2.00) but with high heterogeneity (I 2  = 65%). Regarding the subgroups, there was no benefit in PD-L1 negative (HR:0.81, 95% CI 0.70-1.00; z = 1.96, I 2  = 0%) and in non-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR:0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.15; z = 0.56, I 2  = 0%). Adjuvant treatment with ICI to patients with high-risk MIUC reveals a nonsignificant impact in DFS. The lack of clinical benefit was demonstrated in all subgroups. These data reinforce the need for a careful selection of patients before offering this approach in daily practice., Competing Interests: Disclosures Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro: Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Astra Zeneca. Speaker's Bureau: Janssen, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, BMS Brazil, Pfizer/EMD Serono. Research Funding: Janssen, MSD Oncology. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Zodiac. Andrey Soares: Honoraria: Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi,Roche, Ipsen, Zodiac. Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Zodiac, Amgem, Ipsen, United, Zodiac. Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Astellas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca,Pfizer, AstellasPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen, Zodiac. Andre Poisl Fay: Research funding: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer. Honoraria: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, AztraZeneca, Roche, MSD, BMS, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, IPSEN, MSD, Astellas. Enrique Grande: Honoraria: Adacap, AMGEN, Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caris Life Sciences, Celgene, Clovis-Oncology, Eisai, Eusa Pharma, Genetracer, Guardant Health, HRA-Pharma, IPSEN, ITM-Radiopharma, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nanostring Technologies, Natera, Novartis, ONCODNA (Biosequence), Palex, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Servier, Taiho, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. Research Funding: Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. All other authors do not have relationships to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Many genetic variants affect disease risk by altering context-dependent gene regulation. Such variants are difficult to study mechanistically using current methods that link genetic variation to steady-state gene expression levels, such as expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs). To address this challenge, we developed the cistrome-wide association study (CWAS), a framework for identifying genotypic and allele-specific effects on chromatin that are also associated with disease. In prostate cancer, CWAS identified regulatory elements and androgen receptor-binding sites that explained the association at 52 of 98 known prostate cancer risk loci and discovered 17 additional risk loci. CWAS implicated key developmental transcription factors in prostate cancer risk that are overlooked by eQTL-based approaches due to context-dependent gene regulation. We experimentally validated associations and demonstrated the extensibility of CWAS to additional epigenomic datasets and phenotypes, including response to prostate cancer treatment. CWAS is a powerful and biologically interpretable paradigm for studying variants that influence traits by affecting transcriptional regulation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

In this work, an intercomparison of sensitization effects produced by gold (GNP) and dextran-coated iron oxide (SPION-DX) nanoparticles in M059J and U87 human glioblastoma cells was performed using 6 MV-photons. Three variables were mapped: the nanoparticle material, treatment concentration, and cell radiosensitivity. For U87, GNP treatments resulted in high sensitization enhancement ratios (SER[Formula: see text] up to 2.04). More modest effects were induced by SPION-DX, but still significant reductions in survival were achieved (maximum SER[Formula: see text] ). For the radiosensitive M059J, sensitization by both NPs was poor. SER[Formula: see text] increased with the degree of elemental uptake in the cells, but not necessarily with treatment concentration. For GNP, where exposure concentration and elemental uptake were found to be proportional, SER[Formula: see text] increased linearly with concentration in both cell lines. For SPION-DX, saturation of sensitization enhancement and metal uptake occurred at high exposures. Fold change in the [Formula: see text] ratios extracted from survival curves are reduced by the presence of SPION-DX but strongly increased by GNPs , suggesting that sensitization by GNPs occurs mainly via promotion of lethal damage, while for SPION-DX repairable damage dominates. The NPs were more effective in eliminating the radioresistant glioblastoma cells, an interesting finding, as resistant cells are key targets to improve treatment outcome., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

PARP inhibitors in combination with androgen receptor-targeted therapy have demonstrated potential in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, two-part TALAPRO-2 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as a first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC with or without DNA damage response (DDR) alterations. This study has two co-primary end points: radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent clinical review in all-comers (cohort 1) and in patients with DDR alterations (cohort 2). TALAPRO-2 will demonstrate whether talazoparib plus enzalutamide can significantly improve the efficacy of enzalutamide in terms of rPFS in both molecularly unselected and DDR-deficient patients with mCRPC (NCT03395197). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Therapies based on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab, have proven effective in the treatment of metastatic urological neoplasms. Recently, it has been hypothesized that the use of this type of treatment prior to surgery could lead to an increased difficulty in renal and bladder surgeries. The literature concerning this topic, however, is still scarce and non-consensual. In our systematic review, we used the PRISMA guidelines methodology to search the pertinent literature available up to June 18, 2020 in PubMed. Additionally, we searched the related grey literature in the abstracts of the meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary (ASCO-GU), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and American Urological Association (AUA) from 2015 to 2020. We were able to find only 16 publications that addressed the use of ICIs prior to surgery in kidney and bladder neoplasms. The results were conflicting, and usually the issue of surgical difficulties after the use of ICIs was not directly approached. We hope that our publication may raise the awareness towards the need to further investigate the effects of neoadjuvant ICIs on surgical outcomes in urologic cancers., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with apalutamide, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel are the standard treatments for advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). We investigated ADT-free alternatives for advanced CSPC., Patients and Methods: LACOG 0415 is a phase 2, open-label, non-comparative, randomized trial. Patients with advanced CSPC were randomized (1:1:1) to receive goserelin plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (ADT plus AAP arm), apalutamide (APA arm), or apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (APA plus AAP arm). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were performed in all patients with at least one dose of the study drug., Results: Of 128 randomized patients, 120 patients were evaluable for PSA response at week 25; 17.2% had a high-risk biochemical recurrence, 8.6% had locally advanced disease, and 74.2% had distant metastases. At week 25, PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL was observed in 75.6% (95%CI 59.7%-87.6%), 60.0% (95%CI 43.3%-75.1%), and 79.5% (95%CI 63.5%-90.7%) of patients in ADT plus AAP, APA, and APA plus AAP arms, respectively. PSA decline of ≥80% was observed in 100%, 90.0%, and 97.4%, respectively. Grade 3-4 AEs were observed in 31.0%, 21.4% and 36.4%, respectively. Testosterone levels increased significantly in the APA arm and decreased significantly in ADT plus AAP and APA plus AAP arms., Conclusions: ADT-free alternatives provide a high PSA response in advanced CSPC, although the APA arm did not reach the expected rate of PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25. These results warrant further investigation of ADT-free treatments as alternatives in advanced CSPC., Source Study Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02867020., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement FCM reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer Shering Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb Brazil, Janssen Oncology, Med Sharp & Dohme; consulting or advisory role: Astellas Pharma, Bayer Shering Pharma, Bristol-Myers Brazil, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, & Dohme; research funding: Janssen- Cilag; and travel expenses: Bayer Shering Pharma and Merck Sharp & Dohme. FAS fees speaker: Janssen, Bayer, Astellas, MSD, BMS, and Roche; advisory board: Bayer, Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, MSD, and BMS; and sponsored research (as principal investigator): Roche, BMS, MSD, Janssen, AstraZeneca. MAL fees speaker: Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Bayer; research grant: AMGEN, Ferring, AstraZeneca, ProScan; advisory board: ProScan, Janssen, Astellas; sponsored research: Ferring, Janssen, Bayer, GSK, Active Biotech; travel expenses: Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer. DBQM reports grants from Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, outside the submitted work. DAB reports personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharp Dome; personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. OS reports non-financial support from Janssen, during the conduct of the study. AS reports personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; non-financial support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi; grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. FMC reports grants from Janssen-Cilag; travel expenses from Janssen-Cilag and Zodiac. TMS reports grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; other from Janssen employee, other from AMGEN outside the submitted work. VCF reports other from Janssen Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; other from Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. RG reports other from Janssen Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; other from Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. GW reports grants from Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. RGJ reports grants from Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. VCS reports grants from Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Bayer, Janssen-Cilag and Bristol-Myers Squibb; non-financial support from Bayer and Janssen-Cilag outside the submitted work. APF reports personal fees BMS, Roche, Novartis, Janssen, Astellas, Merck, AstraZeneca; non-financial support from BMS, Roche, Janssen, Astellas, Merck, Ipsen, AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. EHC, SPSM, FMC, FAP, AGJ, FAF and DH have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: According to pathologico-clinical features, patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) are stratified into distinct risk groups (low-risk, intermediate-risk or high-risk). Data have demonstrated that 68 Gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ( 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) is superior to conventional radiological exams (CT or MRI and bone scintigraphy) in the primary staging of high-risk localized PCa. However, it is still unknown if in a population of high-risk PCa, there would be a subgroup of patients with a higher probability of identifying metastatic disease by the 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT., Materials and Methods: Data from patients with localized PCa who underwent 68 GA-PSMA PET/CT for primary staging from four institutions were retrospectively collected. We selected patients with at least one D'Amico classification risk factor (International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ IV and/or prostate-specific antigen > 20 ng/ml). To detect an association between extent of disease and number of risk factors as well as International Society of Urological Pathology prostate cancer grade, contingency tables were used, and Fisher Exact Test was performed., Results: Between 2016 and 2020, 60 patients underwent a 68 GA-PSMA PET/CT for primary staging of high-risk localized PCa. Regarding the number of risk factors, 37 patients (62%) had one risk factor, and 23 (38%) had two risk factors. In the subgroup of patients with metastatic disease (n = 22), those with two risk factors had higher incidence of metastatic disease, and it was statistically significant ( p = 0.011 )., Conclusion: This retrospective analysis demonstrated that 68 GA-PSMA PET/CT was able to identify advanced disease in more than one-third of patients with high-risk disease especially those with two adverse risk factors., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© 2020 Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Methods: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24., Findings: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury)., Interpretation: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) are typically excluded from clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and there are limited data on outcomes in this population. The single-arm international SAUL study of atezolizumab enrolled a broader 'real-world' patient population. We present outcomes in patients with a history of AID., Methods: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was safety. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end-point. Subgroup analyses of AID patients were prespecified., Results: Thirty-five of 997 treated patients had AID at baseline, most commonly psoriasis (n = 15). Compared with non-AID patients, AID patients experienced numerically more adverse events (AEs) of special interest (46% versus 30%; grade ≥3 14% versus 6%) and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (26% versus 12%), but without relevant increases in treatment-related deaths (0% versus 1%) or AEs necessitating treatment discontinuation (9% versus 6%). Pre-existing AID worsened in four patients (11%; two flares in two patients); three of the six flares resolved, one was resolving, and two were unresolved. Efficacy was similar in AID and non-AID patients (median OS, 8.2 versus 8.8 months, respectively; median progression-free survival, 4.4 versus 2.2 months; disease control rate, 51% versus 39%)., Conclusions: In 35 atezolizumab-treated patients with pre-existing AID, incidences of special- interest and treatment-related AEs appeared acceptable. AEs were manageable, rarely requiring atezolizumab discontinuation. Treating these patients requires caution, but pre-existing AID does not preclude atezolizumab therapy., Trial Registration: NCT02928406., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Y.L. reports a grant and non-financial support from Roche for the SAUL study and funding of editorial support, a grant from Celsius, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, Janssen and MSD and personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Seattle Genetics and Pfizer. C.N.S. reports consultancy for Pfizer, MSD, Merck, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche/Genentech and Incyte. D.C. reports research funding to his institution from Janssen Oncology; adviser/consultancy to Janssen Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and Boehringer Ingelheim; travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca Spain. S.F.O. reports research grants to institution from Celldex and Novartis. H.D. reports travel/accommodation/expenses from Astellas, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Ipsen, MSD and Janssen-Cilag. R.H. reports grants and personal fees from MSD; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from Nektar and Janssen; personal fees from Bayer, BMS and NICE; partnership in Cancer Centre London. K.V. reports adviser/consultancy to Lilly, Novartis, Bayer and Pfizer; speaker bureau/expert testimony for Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly and BMS. T.A.G. reports adviser/consultancy to BMS, MSD, Roche, Astellas, Ipsen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eisai, Bayer; speaker bureau/expert testimony for Pfizer, Ipsen, Janssen and Astellas; research grant/funding to institution from Roche, Ipsen and Pfizer; travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme and Ipsen. I.S. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche. A.P.F. reports research grants from Roche, personal fees from BMS, Roche, Novartis, Janssen, Astellas, Merck and AstraZeneca and non-financial support from BMS, Roche, Janssen, Astellas, Merck, Ipsen and AstraZeneca. B.B. reports personal fees for adviser/consultant roles from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Swixx BioPharma and Ipsen, travel/accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Bausch Health and Ipsen and non-financial support for adviser/consultant roles from GSK. P.M. reports adviser/consultancy to Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer and BMS; research grant/funding to institution from Roche. S.F. works for Roche (under contract via Hayes Schweiz AG). F.Di.N. reports employment with Roche/Genentech; share/stockholder of Roche/Genentech. S.de.D. reports employment with F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; shareholder of F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. E.C. reports personal fees from Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Gilead, AbbVie, R-Pharm, SynAct Pharma and ObsEva and research grants from Chugai Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Biogen and Bio-Cancer. F.N. and F.M. declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Combination treatments with immuno-oncology (IO) agents and IO agents plus a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) have been approved for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). No direct comparisons have been performed among these treatment options. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank the available regimens for first-line treatment in terms of survival benefit and efficacy. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement, a systematic search of reported studies was performed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE up to May 31, 2019. Network meta-analysis models were adjusted using the Bayesian method. Four randomized clinical trials, with a total of 3758 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Considering systemic therapy, 1880 patients had received sunitinib and 550, 432, 442, and 454 patients had received ipilimumab plus nivolumab (ipi + nivo), pembrolizumab plus axitinib (pembro + axi), avelumab plus axitinib (avelu + axi), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo + bev). No difference was found in overall survival between ipi + nivo and pembro + axi for the intention to treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.92-1.97). No difference was found in progression-free survival among the treatments. The overall response rate (ORR) was superior with pembro + axi and avelu + axi compared with the ORR with the other treatments (atezo + bev vs. pembro + axi: HR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.52-0.84; ipi + nivo vs. pembro + axi: HR, 0.73; 95% CrI, 0.59-0.90; atezo + bev vs. avelu + axi: HR, 0.55; 95% CrI, 0.43-0.71; avelu + axi vs. ipi + nivo: HR, 1.66; 95% CrI, 1.31-2.12), with no differences across them (HR, 1.21; 95% CrI, 0.95-1.53). In the present indirect comparison, for an intention to treat population, we found no survival differences between pembro + axi and ipi + nivo. All treatments showed better progression-free survival compared with sunitinib that was similar among them. The combination of an IO agent (pembrolizumab or avelumab) and axitinib seemed to be the most effective therapy for the ORR., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients., Methods: Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session., Results: The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available., Conclusion: This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Background: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) is a rare malignancy with higher incidence in developing countries. Treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, and systemic chemotherapy. However, effective treatments for advanced disease are lacking. To understand the biology underlying PSCC may help the development of new therapeutic strategies. The objective of this study was to evaluate immunohistochemical expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and p16 in PSCC and its association with clinicopathologic features and outcomes., Patients and Methods: A cohort of 40 patients with PSCC from an academic institution in Brazil was analyzed. Clinicopathologic features and outcomes were retrospectively collected. PD-L1 and p16 immunohistochemical expression were performed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens. PD-L1 was positive with any staining in more than 1% of tumor, and p16 was positive in more than 10%. Associations were performed using the Mann-Whitney and Fisher exact test. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival rates with log-rank., Results: Of 35 patients, 5 were excluded, 4 owing to a lack of data and 1 owing to no tumor available; 18 (51.4%) patients were PD-L1-positive (PD-L1 + ). PD-L1 + was associated with larger tumors (P = .027). There was an association between PD-L1 + and p16 expression (P = .002). PD-L1 + was more frequent in grade II and III disease than grade I (77.8% vs. 22.2%) and was expressed in all patients with grade III disease. Lymph node involvement was associated with PD-L1 expression (69.2% PD-L1 + vs. 30.8% PD-L1-negative). The 5-year mortality was 37.1%., Conclusion: PD-L1 expression appears to be associated with p16 expression, larger tumors, and worse clinical outcomes in PSCC and may provide clinical data for new studies to evaluate anti-PD-L1 immune therapies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We previously showed that alterations in mTOR pathway genes were correlated with response to rapalog therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), when the analysis focused on extremes of response. Herein, we expand on the prior cohort and examine genetic correlations with rapalog response in a dataset not selected for extremes of response. Tumors from 58 patients from the phase III trial of temsirolimus and 51 local patients with mRCC treated with rapalogs were studied. Somatic mutations were investigated using a targeted sequencing platform covering 27 genes. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as patients with complete remission, partial response, or stable disease lasting at least 22 weeks. Mutational analyses focused on 5 mTOR pathway genes ( TSC1, TSC2, MTOR, PTEN, PIK3CA ) and 6 genes commonly mutated in RCC ( BAP1, KDM5C, PBRM1 SETD2, TP53 , and VHL ). Among the 109 patients, 93 (85%) patients had clear cell histology, and 31 (28%) showed CB. Nine of 30 (30%) patients harboring mTOR pathway mutations in their tumor achieved CB versus 22 of 79 (28%) in the wild-type group. There was no distinct association between any individual or combination of mTOR pathway gene mutations and CB. Three of 7 patients with TSC1 mutations showed CB. In addition, none of the 6 genes commonly mutated in RCC showed a mutation pattern that correlated with CB. Overall, in this large and diverse population of patients with mRCC, there is no suggestion of a correlation between response to rapalog therapy and mutation status for mTOR pathway genes., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline., Methods: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session., Results: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D., Conclusions: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: Adriano Gonçalves e Silva, Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Advisory Board: Astellas, Janssen, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Sanofi. André Deeke Sasse, Honoraria: Janssen, Astellas, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Advisory Board: Janssen, Astellas, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Events Sponsorship: Janssen, Roche. André P. Fay, Honoraria: Pfizer, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Advisory Board: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen. Research Funding: CAPES, CNPq, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer. Andrey Soares, Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Roche. Events sponsorship: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen. Advisory Board: Astellas, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb. Denis Leonardo Jardim, Speaker Fee: Roche, Janssen, Astellas, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Libbs. Advisory Board: Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Libbs. Deusdedit Cortez Vieira da Silva Neto, Speaker Fee: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer. Advisory Board: Janssen. Diogo Assed Bastos, Research Funding: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Honoraria/Advisory Board: Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer. Diogo Augusto Rodrigues da Rosa, Research Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Roche, Amgen, Dr Reddy’s, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Events Sponsorship: Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Ipsen. Advisory Board: Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca. Evanius Wierman, Honoraria: Janssen, Libbs. Advisory Board: Janssen. Fabio Kater, Speaker Fee: Janssen, Roche, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Astellas. Events Sponsorship: Roche, Janssen. Fabio A. Schutz, Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ipsen, Pfizer. Speaker’s bureau: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Astellas. Felipe de Almeida e Paula, None. Fernando Cotait Maluf, Research Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen. Speaker Fee: Sanofi, Novartis, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer. Advisory Board: Sanofi, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas, Novartis, Roche. Fernando Korkes, None. Fernando Nunes Galvão de Oliveira, Speaker Fee: Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Libbs. Advisory Board: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Ferring. Fernando Sabino Marques Monteiro, Speaker and Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb. Gustavo Franco Carvalhal, None. Igor Alexandre Protzner Morbeck, Research Funding: Astellas. Honoraria/Advisory Board: Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Bayer. José Augusto Rinck Júnior, Speaker Fee/Events sponsorship: Pfizer, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Aché. Karine Martins da Trindade, Research Funding: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Speaker Fee: Janssen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pfizer, Merck Serono. Events Sponsorship: Janssen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Novartis. Advisory Board: Janssen, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Lucas Nogueira, Speaker Fee: Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Events Sponsorship: Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. Advisory Board: Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Manuel Caitano Maia, Speaker Fee: Pfizer. Events Sponsorship: Pfizer, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Janssen, Libbs. Roni de Carvalho Fernandes, Events Sponsorship: Astellas, Janssen, Handle/Cook. Speaker Fee: Janssen, Aché. Advisory Board: Janssen. Rodolfo Borges dos Reis, Speaker Fee: Janssen, AstraZeneca. Advisory Board: Janssen, Astellas. Research Funding: AstraZeneca. Events Sponsorship: Janssen, Pfizer, Astellas, Roche. Stênio de Cássio Zequi, Speaker fee: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Research funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme. Events sponsorship: Astellas. Vinicius Carrera Souza, Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen. Speaker Fee: Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Advisory Board: Roche, Janssen. Wagner Eduardo Matheus, Speaker Fee: Astellas, Janssen, Zodiac, AstraZeneca, Aché. Events Sponsorship: Astellas, Zodiac, Janssen, AstraZeneca. Walter Henriques da Costa, None. Speaker Fee: Astellas, Janssen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Bayer. Events sponsorship: Astellas, Janssen, Zodiac. Research Funding: Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Wilson Francisco Schreiner Busato Jr, None.

Objective: to study the expression of the tissue factor (TF) and its correlation with prognosis and survival in patients with gastric carcinoma., Methods: we measured the immunohistochemical expression of TF in 50 specimens of gastric adenocarcinomas from patients submitted to curative surgery. We then compared the intensity of its expression with clinical and pathological data, TNM staging, prognostic factors and survival., Results: all tumors displayed TF expression; the intensity of TF expression was not associated with TNM stage, clinical or pathological variables or general survival., Conclusion: TF has a high expression in gastric carcinoma, but that it is not useful as a prognostic marker.