| 1. |
- Bjartell, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Real-World Safety and Efficacy Outcomes with Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone or Prednisolone as the First- or Second-Line Treatment for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer : Data from the Prostate Cancer Registry
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Targeted Oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1776-2596 .- 1776-260X. ; 16:3, s. 357-367
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Despite standard-of-care androgen-deprivation therapy and an increasing number of treatment options, the mortality rate for prostate cancer remains high. Progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) necessitates additional treatments. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) prolongs survival in chemotherapy-naive and docetaxel-experienced patients. Objective: To evaluate the real-world safety and efficacy of AAP as first-line and second-line [post-docetaxel only (AAP-PD)] treatment in patients with mCRPC. Patients and methods: The Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) was a prospective, international, observational study of patients with mCRPC in routine clinical practice. Men aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed mCRPC were included. Baseline characteristics, safety (treatment-emergent adverse events, treatment-emergent severe adverse events), and efficacy [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] were analyzed. Results: At baseline, patients who received first-line AAP (n = 754) were generally older than patients who received AAP-PD (n = 354); median age was 76 years and 70 years, respectively. However, the rate of visceral metastasis was higher in the AAP-PD cohort than in the AAP cohort (17.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively). Demographics and disease characteristics of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease were similar to those of the overall registry population. Efficacy outcomes were similar for all patients, regardless of the line of AAP therapy. For first-line AAP and AAP-PD, respectively, the median PFS was 8.9 and 5.8 months for all patients and 9.1 and 6.0 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities; median OS was 27.1 and 23.4 months for all patients, and 27.4 and 23.1 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. There were no unexpected adverse events in any patient subgroup. Conclusions: These real-world data complement the findings from randomized controlled trials, indicating that first- and second-line AAP is well tolerated and effective in patients with mCRPC, including those with underlying CV comorbidities. Trial Registration Number: NCT02236637, registered 8 September 2014.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rouprêt, Morgan, et al.
(författare)
-
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma : 2023 Update
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 84:1, s. 49-64
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has updated the guidelines to aid clinicians in evidence-based management of UTUC. Objective: To provide an overview of the EAU guidelines on UTUC as an aid to clinicians. Evidence acquisition: The recommendations provided in these guidelines are based on a review of the literature via a systematic search of the PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Data were searched using the following keywords: urinary tract cancer, urothelial carcinomas, renal pelvis, ureter, bladder cancer, chemotherapy, ureteroscopy, nephroureterectomy, neoplasm, (neo)adjuvant treatment, instillation, recurrence, risk factors, metastatic, immunotherapy, and survival. The results were assessed by a panel of experts. Evidence synthesis: Even though data are accruing, for many areas there is still insufficient high-level evidence to provide strong recommendations. Patient stratification on the basis of histology and clinical examination (including imaging) and assessment of patients at risk of Lynch syndrome will aid management. Kidney-sparing management should be offered as a primary treatment option to patients with low-risk UTUC and two functional kidneys. In particular, for patients with high-risk or metastatic UTUC, new treatment options have become available. In high-risk UTUC, platinum-based chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy, and adjuvant nivolumab for unfit or patients who decline chemotherapy, are options. For metastatic disease, gemcitabine/carboplatin chemotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible patients. Patients with PD-1/PD-L1–positive tumours should be offered a checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab or atezolizumab). Conclusions: These guidelines contain information on the management of individual patients according to the current best evidence. Urologists should take into account the specific clinical characteristics of each patient when determining the optimal treatment regimen according to the risk stratification of these tumours. Patient summary: Cancer of the upper urinary tract is rare, but because 60% of these tumours are invasive at diagnosis, timely and appropriate diagnosis is most important. A number of known risk factors exist.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
