Search

OBJECTIVE: To analyze if exposure to sunitinib in the SURTIME trial which investigated opposite sequences of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and systemic therapy is associated with the overall survival (OS) benefit observed in the deferred CN arm. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of SURTIME trial data. Variables analysed included number of patients receiving sunitinib, time from randomisation to start sunitinib, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1, and duration of drug exposure and dose in the intention-to-treat population of the immediate and deferred arm. Descriptive methods and 95% confidence-intervals (CI) were used. RESULTS: In the deferred arm, 97.7%(CI:89.3-99.6; n=48) received sunitinib versus 80% (CI:66.9-88.7,n=40) in the immediate arm. Following immediate CN, 19.6% progressed 4 weeks after CN and median time to start sunitinib was 39.5 days versus 4.5 days in the deferred arm. At week 16, 46.0% had progressed at metastatic sites in the immediate CN arm versus 32.7% in the deferred arm. Sunitinib dose reductions, escalations and interruptions were not statistically significantly different between arms. Among patients who received sunitinib in the immediate or deferred arm the median total sunitinib treatment duration was 172.5 versus 248 days. Reduction of target lesions was more profound in the deferred arm. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the deferred CN approach, immediate CN impairs administration, onset, and duration of sunitinib. Starting with systemic therapy leads to early and more profound disease control and identification of progression prior to planned CN which may have contributed to the observed OS benefit.

Importance: In clinical practice, patients with primary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been offered cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) followed by targeted therapy, but the optimal sequence of surgery and systemic therapy is unknown. Objective: To examine whether a period of sunitinib therapy before CN improves outcome compared with immediate CN followed by sunitinib. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial began as a phase 3 trial on July 14, 2010, and continued until March 24, 2016, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years and a clinical cutoff date for this report of May 5, 2017. Patients with mRCC of clear cell subtype, resectable primary tumor, and 3 or fewer surgical risk factors were studied. Interventions: Immediate CN followed by sunitinib therapy vs treatment with 3 cycles of sunitinib followed by CN in the absence of progression followed by sunitinib therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival was the primary end point, which needed a sample size of 458 patients. Because of poor accrual, the independent data monitoring committee endorsed reporting the intention-to-treat 28-week progression-free rate (PFR) instead. Overall survival (OS), adverse events, and postoperative progression were secondary end points. Results: The study closed after 5.7 years with 99 patients (80 men and 19 women; mean [SD] age, 60 [8.5] years). The 28-week PFR was 42% in the immediate CN arm (n = 50) and 43% in the deferred CN arm (n = 49) (P =.61). The intention-to-treat OS hazard ratio of deferred vs immediate CN was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.34-0.95; P =.03), with a median OS of 32.4 months (95% CI, 14.5-65.3 months) in the deferred CN arm and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.3-29.5 months) in the immediate CN arm. In the deferred CN arm, 48 of 49 patients (98%; 95% CI, 89%-100%) received sunitinib vs 40 of 50 (80%; 95% CI, 67%-89%) in the immediate arm. Systemic progression before planned CN in the deferred CN arm resulted in a per-protocol recommendation against nephrectomy in 14 patients (29%; 95% CI, 18%-43%). Conclusions and Relevance: Deferred CN did not improve the 28-week PFR. With the deferred approach, more patients received sunitinib and OS results were higher. Pretreatment with sunitinib may identify patients with inherent resistance to systemic therapy before planned CN. This evidence complements recent data from randomized clinical trials to inform treatment decisions in patients with primary clear cell mRCC requiring sunitinib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01099423., SCOPUS: cp.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

We comprehensively tested contemporary incidence and mortality rates in patients with germ cell tumor of the testis (GCTT).Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2015), statistical analyses included estimated annual percentage changes, multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models, Kaplan-Meier curves, and multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models.Of 13,114 GCTT patients, 7954 (60.6%) harbored seminoma germ cell tumors of the testis (SGCTT) and 5160 (39.4%) non-SGCTT (NSGCTT). Relative to SGCTT, NSGCTT patients harbored more advanced stage (for stage III 824 [16.0%] vs. 279 patients [3.5%]; P .001). In MLR, higher rates of stage II/III affected those with never-married status (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P .001) and African American ethnicity (OR, 1.5; P = .005) for SGCTT and never-married (OR, 1.3; P = .002) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.3; P .001) for NSGCTT. Significant differences in 5-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) distinguished SGCTT (stage I: 0.4; stage II: 3.4; stage III: 11.4%; P .001) from NSGCTT (stage I: 1.6; stage II: 2.5; stage III: 22.2%; P .001). In MCR, unmarried status independently predicted higher CSM for SGCTT (hazard ratio [HR], 2.1; P = .007) and NSGCTT (HR, 1.9; P .001).Stage I and stage III NSGCTT survival is worse, than for SGCTT. Never-married, Hispanic, and African American individuals are at higher risk of more advanced stage and/or CSM in SGCTT and NSGCTT.

Background: We tested contemporary surveillance and active treatment (AT) that included chemotherapy (CHT) and radiotherapy (RT) rates for stage I testicular seminoma patients, as well as cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) rates. Patients and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1988-2015) we identified 11,206 stage I testicular seminoma patients. Surveillance versus CHT versus RT use rates were investigated using estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) analyses. After propensity score (PS) matching, cumulative incidence plots and multivariable competing risks regression models (MCRRMs) tested for CSM and OCM. Results: Of all 11,206 patients, 4434 (40%), 918 (8%), and 5854 (52%), respectively, underwent surveillance, CHT, or RT after initial orchiectomy. Surveillance (EAPC: 7.5%; P < .001) and CHT (EAPC: 13.5%; P < .001) rates increased over time, whereas RT rates decreased (EAPC: −3.8%; P < .001). After PS matching, in MCRRMs surveillance was an independent predictor of CSM, relative to AT (hazard ratio [HR], 2.59; P = .04). Conversely, surveillance versus AT did not affect OCM (HR, 1.52; P = .051). All other analyses that focused on CSM and OCM, namely surveillance versus RT, surveillance versus CHT, and RT versus CHT resulted in nonsignificant differences (all P > .5). Conclusion: Surveillance and CHT use in stage I testicular seminoma rates increased, whereas RT rate decreased over time. A protective effect of AT defined as either RT or CHT was identified on CSM, relative to surveillance. This protective effect was not described for OCM. No differences in survival were recorded, when individual management strategies (surveillance vs. RT vs. CHT) were compared with each other. Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1988-2015) we identified 11,206 stage I testicular seminoma patients, who underwent respectively surveillance (40%), chemotherapy (CHT; 8%), or radiotherapy (RT; 52%) after orchiectomy. Surveillance and CHT rates increased over time, whereas RT rates decreased. A protective effect of active treatment defined as either RT or CHT was identified on cancer-specific mortality, relative to surveillance.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based adjuvant therapy showed no survival benefits for patients with high-risk nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC). Five randomized immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitor trials are ongoing. We assessed the effect of stage, grade, and histologic type on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in candidates for 1 of the 4 North American ongoing immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitor trials of high-risk nmRCC.From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2001-2015), we identified patients who had undergone surgery for nmRCC and had met the inclusion criteria for the PROSPER RCC (nivolumab in treating patients with localized kidney cancer undergoing nephrectomy), CheckMate 914 (a study comparing the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus placebo in participants with localized renal cell carcinoma), KEYNOTE-564 [safety and efficacy study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) as monotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma post nephrectomy], or IMmotion010 [a study of atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in participants with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of developing metastasis following nephrectomy] trials. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the 10-year CSM rates in the overall cohort according to stage, grade, and histologic characteristics, and in 4 generated random samples according to the eligible patients for each of the 4 trials.Of 116,750 patients who had undergone surgery for nmRCC, 18,559 (15.9%) had fulfilled the inclusion criteria for 1 of the 4 trials. The greatest proportion of higher stage and grade combinations and sarcomatoid histologic features would have qualified for IMmotion010, followed by KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate 914, and PROSPER RCC. Multivariable Cox regression models demonstrated the most unfavorable prognosis for stage N1 grade 3/4 (hazard ratio [HR], 11.5; P .001), stage T4N0 grade 3/4 (HR, 9.8; P .001), and sarcomatoid histologic features (HR, 5.5; P .001). Among the 4 random samples, the difference in the qualifying criteria resulted in the greatest versus progressively lower CSM rates in the IMmotion010, KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate 914, and PROSPER RCC trials, respectively (P .001).Our findings indicate that participation in adjuvant immunotherapy trials should be predominantly encouraged for patients with high-grade stage T3, T4, and N1 and patients with any stage with sarcomatoid pathologic features.

Introduction: Our aim was to assess adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of either robot-assisted (RARP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP).Methods: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database and focused on localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients who were treated with either RARP or ORP between October 2008 and December 2009. Categorical and multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted two endpoints: 1) probability of guideline-recommended PLND; and 2) probability of no PLND, when not guideline-recommended.Results: Among 5268 PCa patients, adherence to NCCN PLND guideline was 56.9% during RARP and 76.5% during ORP (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3‒0.6). AUA PLND guideline adherence was 68.1% during RARP and 82.4% during ORP (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5‒0.9). When PLND was not recommended, it was more frequently performed during ORP according to either NCCN (OR 3.7, 95% CI 3.5‒3.9) or AUA (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.6‒2.8). According to the NCCN guideline, at recommended PLND in ORP patients, 6.3% harboured lymph node invasion (LNI) (number needed to treat [NNT] 16) vs. 3.2% at RARP (NNT 31). According to the AUA guideline, at recommended PLND in ORP patients, 12.3% harboured LNI (NNT 8) vs. 5.1% RARP (NNT 19).Conclusions: Adherence to NCCN and AUA PLND guidelines was lower during RARP than during ORP when PLND was recommended. The rate of non-recommended PLND was also higher during ORP than during RARP. Technical considerations may be at play.