| 1. |
- Witjes, J. Alfred, et al.
(författare)
-
EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer – An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort : Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 77:2, s. 223-250
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.
|
|
| 2. |
- Escudier, Bernard, et al.
(författare)
-
Multidisciplinary management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapies
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Cancer Treatment Reviews. - : Elsevier. - 0305-7372 .- 1532-1967. ; 38:2, s. 127-132
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The use of targeted agents to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly extended progression-free and overall survival but raises issues relating to the long-term delivery of care and the sustained monitoring of efficacy and toxicities, certain of which have not previously been experienced. In this paper, an expert group of medical oncologists, urologists and oncology nurses and pharmacists review and make informal recommendations on the multidisciplinary management of mRCC in the light of progress made and problems that have arisen. Decentralisation of care, with a shift in emphasis from large to small hospitals and possibly to the community, may offer advantages of cost and convenience. However, the major responsibility for care should continue to lie with clinicians (either medical oncologists or urologists) with extensive experience in mRCC, assisted by specialist nurses, and working in centres with facilities adequate to monitor efficacy and manage toxicities. That said, the extended survival of patients emphasises the importance of compliance and the long-term prevention, detection and management of side effects. Much of this will take place in the community. There is therefore a need for multidisciplinary working to extend beyond specialist centres to include general practitioners, community nurses and pharmacists. Although this paper focuses on mRCC, many of the considerations discussed are also relevant to the management of more common solid tumours in the era of targeted therapy.
|
|
| 3. |
- Joniau, Steven, et al.
(författare)
-
Current Vaccination Strategies for Prostate Cancer
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 61:2, s. 290-306
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The first therapeutic cancer vaccine demonstrating effectiveness in a phase 3 study was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on 29 April 2010. The pivotal trial demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit in patients treated with antigen-loaded leukapheresis cells compared with a control infusion. Results of other prostate cancer (PCa) vaccination strategies are awaited, as this approach may herald a new era in the care for patients with advanced PCa. Objective: Consider effectiveness and safety of vaccination strategies in the treatment of PCa. Evidence acquisition: We searched three bibliographic databases (January 1995 through October 2010) for randomised phase 2 and 3 studies of vaccination strategies for PCa based on predetermined relevant Medical Subject Heading terms and free text terms. Evidence synthesis: Data from 3 randomised phase 3 and 10 randomised phase 2 vaccination trials are discussed with respect to clinical outcome in terms of progression-free survival and OS, toxicity, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and immunologic response. Three phase 3 trials (D9901, D9902A, and D9902B) that enrolled a total of 737 patients, all controlled and double-blinded, tested the efficacy of sipuleucel-T. The largest of these three trials, called Immunotherapy for Prostate Adenocarcinoma Treatment (IMPACT), has demonstrated safety and effectiveness of sipuleucel-T (now marketed as Provenge) as measured by prolonged survival of 512 asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). The study showed a 4.1-mo median survival benefit in the sipuleucel-T vaccine-treated group compared with the control group (25.8 vs 21.7 mo; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.98; p = 0.032) and extended 3-yr survival (31.7% vs 23.0%). In contrast, two phase 3 vaccination trials with a whole-tumour-cell mixture of two PCa cell lines (GVAX) and testing GVAX either alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (VITAL1 and 2) were terminated prematurely based on futility and increased deaths. Other phase 2 vaccination trials testing different types of vaccines in castration-resistant PCa patients have been reported with variable outcomes. Notably, a controlled, double-blind, randomised phase 2 vaccine trial of PROSTVAC-VF, a recombinant viral vector containing complementary DNA encoding PSA, in 125 patients with chemotherapy-naive, minimally symptomatic mCRPC also demonstrated safety but no significant effect on the time to disease progression. In comparison with controls (n = 40), PROSTVAC-VF-treated patients (n = 82) experienced longer median extended 3-yr survival (30% vs 17%). In general, PCa vaccines are perceived to have less toxicity compared with current cytotoxic or targeted therapies. Evaluation of clinical efficacy of different vaccination strategies (eg, protein-, peptide-and DNA-based vaccines) in the context of properly designed and controlled phase 3 studies is warranted. Conclusions: Cancer vaccines represent a new paradigm in the treatment of PCa. The IMPACT trial showed improved survival but no difference in time to disease progression in mCRPC patients with minimal tumour burden. Observations in phase 2 and 3 trials pave the way for other vaccination approaches for this disease, raise questions regarding the most appropriate clinical trial designs, and underscore the importance of identifying biomarkers for antitumour effect to better implement such therapies. (C) 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
|
|
