EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†.

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 before 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), 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, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements 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 where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

ESMO Consensus Conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus conference on testicular cancer was held on 3-5 November 2016 in Paris, France. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 36 leading experts in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular cancer (34 panel members attended the conference; an additional two panel members [CB and K-PD] participated in all preparatory work and subsequent manuscript development). The aim of the conference was to develop detailed recommendations on topics relating to testicular cancer that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and where the available level of evidence is insufficient. The main topics identified for discussion related to: (1) diagnostic work-up and patient assessment; (2) stage I disease; (3) stage II-III disease; (4) post-chemotherapy surgery, salvage chemotherapy, salvage and desperation surgery and special topics; and (5) survivorship and follow-up schemes. The experts addressed questions relating to one of the five topics within five working groups. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel. A consensus vote was obtained following whole-panel discussions, and the consensus recommendations were then further developed in post-meeting discussions in written form. This manuscript presents the results of the expert panel discussions, including the consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

The ESMO guideline strategy: an identity statement and reflections on improvement.

Guidelines should provide recommendations on the optimal management of a patient in specific clinical circumstances based on the scientific evidence. ESMO, as Europe's leading society in medical oncology produces a range of guideline products in order to assist the cancer specialist towards implementation of quality cancer care, as well as in order to provide information to patients establishing standards for up-to-date optimal management. The ESMO 'guideline products' include the Clinical Practice Guidelines, the complementing Consensus Conferences on focused clinical scenarios, as well as memory tools such as print and e-Pocket Guidelines and Patient Guides. In this manuscript, methodology, design and characteristics of the ESMO guideline products are explained and discussed by their strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats in order to stimulate reflections on room for improvement and future strategy.

Selective organ preservation with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of muscle invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) aims to offer organ preservation without oncological compromise. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy provides survival advantage; response may guide patient selection for bladder preservation and identify those most likely to have favourable result with radiotherapy. METHODS: Ninety-four successive patients with T2-T4aN0M0 bladder cancer treated between January 2000 and June 2011 were analysed at the Royal Marsden Hospital. Patients received platinum-based chemotherapy following transurethral resection of bladder tumour; repeat cystoscopy (± biopsy) was performed to guide subsequent management. Responders were treated with radiotherapy. Poor responders were recommended radical cystectomy. Progression-free survival (PFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method; univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: Response assessment was performed in 89 patients. Seventy-eight (88%) demonstrated response; 53 (60%) achieved complete response (CR); 74 responders had radiotherapy; 4 opted for cystectomy. Eleven (12%) demonstrated poor response, 10 received cystectomy. Median survival for CR was 90 months (95% CI 64.7, 115.9) compared with 16 months (95% CI 5.4, 27.4; P < 0.001) poor responders. On multivariate analysis, only response was associated with significantly improved PFS, OS and DSS. After a median follow-up of 39 months (range 4-127 months), 14 patients (16%) required salvage cystectomy (8 for non-muscle invasive disease, 5 for invasive recurrence, 1 for radiotherapy related toxicity). In all, 82% had an intact bladder at last follow-up after radiotherapy; 67% had an intact bladder at last follow-up or death. Our study is limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy is a favourable prognostic indicator and can be used to select patients for radiotherapy allowing bladder preservation in >80% of the selected patients.

Personalizing, not patronizing: the case for patient autonomy by unbiased presentation of management options in stage I testicular cancer.

Testicular cancer (TC) is the most common neoplasm in males aged 15-40 years. The majority of patients have no evidence of metastases at diagnosis and thus have clinical stage I (CSI) disease [Oldenburg J, Fossa SD, Nuver J et al. Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(Suppl 6): vi125-vi132; de Wit R, Fizazi K. Controversies in the management of clinical stage I testis cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5482-5492.]. Management of CSI TC is controversial and options include surveillance and active treatment. Different forms of adjuvant therapy exist, including either one or two cycles of carboplatin chemotherapy or radiotherapy for seminoma and either one or two cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy or retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminoma. Long-term disease-specific survival is ∼99% with any of these approaches, including surveillance. While surveillance allows most patients to avoid additional treatment, adjuvant therapy markedly lowers the relapse rate. Weighing the net benefits of surveillance against those of adjuvant treatment depends on prioritizing competing aims such as avoiding unnecessary treatment, avoiding more burdensome treatment with salvage chemotherapy and minimizing the anxiety, stress and life disruption associated with relapse. Unbiased information about the advantages and disadvantages of surveillance and adjuvant treatment is a prerequisite for informed consent by the patient. In a clinical scenario like CSI TC, where different disease-management options produce indistinguishable long-term survival rates, patient values, priorities and preferences should be taken into account. In this review, we provide an overview about risk factors for relapse, potential benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy and active surveillance and a rationale for involving patients in individualized decision making about their treatment rather than adopting a uniform recommendation for all.

Second cancer risk and mortality in men treated with radiotherapy for stage I seminoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage I testicular seminoma are typically diagnosed at a young age and treatment is associated with low relapse and mortality rates. The long-term risks of adjuvant radiotherapy in this patient group are therefore particularly relevant. METHODS: We identified patients and obtained treatment details from 12 cancer centres (11 United Kingdom, 1 Norway) and ascertained second cancers and mortality through national registries. Data from 2629 seminoma patients treated with radiotherapy between 1960 and 1992 were available, contributing 51,151 person-years of follow-up. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-eight second cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) were identified. The standardised incidence ratio (SIR) was 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.47-1.76, P<0.0001). The SIR was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.39-1.68, P<0.0001) when the 32 second testicular cancers were also excluded. This increase was largely due to an excess risk to organs in the radiation field; for pelvic-abdominal sites the SIR was 1.62 (95% CI: 1.43-1.83), with no significant elevated risk of cancers in organs elsewhere. There was no overall increase in mortality with a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98-1.14), despite an increase in the cancer-specific mortality (excluding testicular cancer deaths) SMR of 1.46 (95% CI: 1.30-1.65, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of stage I seminoma is excellent and it is important to avoid conferring long-term increased risk of iatrogenic disease such as radiation-associated second cancers.

Clinical implementation of adaptive hypofractionated bladder radiotherapy for improvement in normal tissue irradiation.

AIMS: Adaptive bladder radiotherapy, with plan of the day selection and plan library development based on individual filling patterns, has been previously modelled in patients receiving weekly hypofractionated treatment and improved geometric accuracy has been shown. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical implementation of the technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conformal plans (with small, intermediate and large planning target volumes) were developed for 25 patients. After pre-treatment cone-beam computed tomography, the optimal plan of the day was selected and delivered by two trained observers. Independent off-line plan selection was also carried out. Concordance between the on-line and off-line selections, frequency of plan usage, target coverage and normal tissue sparing were assessed. RESULTS: Plan selection concordance was 91%. Fifty-five per cent of fractions were delivered using small or large plans. The mean coverage of the clinical target volume by the 95% isodose was 99%. The mean reduction in the volume of normal tissue treated to 95% of the prescription dose was 219 cm(3) compared with the previous institutional standard approach. CONCLUSIONS: Good concordance in plan selection is shown with clinical implementation of the adaptive strategy. Adequate target coverage was achieved with reduction in the volume of normal tissue irradiated to a high dose compared with the previous standard approach.

Randomised pilot study of dose escalation using conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Radical three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) with initial androgen suppression (AS) is a standard management for localised prostate cancer (PC). This pilot study evaluated the role of dose escalation and appropriate target volume margin. Here, we report long-term follow-up. METHODS: Eligible patients had T1b-T3b N0 M0 PC. After neoadjuvant AS, they were randomised to CFRT, giving (a) 64 Gy with either a 1.0- or 1.5-cm margin and (b) ±10 Gy boost to the prostate alone. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six men were randomised and treated. Median follow-up was 13.7 years. The median age was 66.6 years at randomisation. Median presenting prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 14 ng ml(-1). Sixty-four out of 126 patients developed PSA failure. Forty-nine out of 126 patients restarted AS, 34 out of 126 developed metastases and 28 out of 126 developed castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Fifty-one out of 126 patients died; 19 out of 51 died of PC. Median overall survival (OS) was 14.4 years. Although escalated dose results were favourable, no statistically significant differences were seen between the randomised groups; PSA control (hazard ratio (HR): 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-1.26)), development of CRPC (HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.40-1.65)), PC-specific survival (HR: 0.59 (95% CI:0.23-1.49)) and OS (HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.47-1.40)). There was no evidence of a difference in PSA control according to margin size (HR: 1.01 (95% CI: 0.61-1.66)). INTERPRETATION: Long-term follow-up of this small pilot study is compatible with a benefit from dose escalation, but confirmation from larger trials is required. There was no obvious detriment using the smaller radiotherapy margin.