DaBlaCa-17: nationwide observational study in Denmark on survival before and after implementation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy implementation with gemcitabine-cisplatin on survival outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected on all patients in Denmark undergoing radical cystectomy who were potential candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2010 to 2015 (n = 851). A cohort before the implementation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Cohort 2010-12) was compared with a cohort after implementation (Cohort 2013-15). Patients in Cohort 2013-15 receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (+NAC, n = 213) were compared with patients in Cohort 2013-15 not receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (-NAC, n = 139). Pathological results after radical cystectomy and oncological outcomes were compared between the study cohorts. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and disease-specific survival were compared with Kaplan-Meier plots and with univariable and multivariable Cox regression. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival were also performed separately for treating hospital and for pathological stage. RESULTS: Pathological T0 (pT0) was more frequent in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy: 34% versus 18% when comparing Cohort 2013-15 with Cohort 2010-12 (p < 0.001), and 46% versus 16% in +NAC compared with -NAC (p < 0.001). Overall survival, disease-free survival, and disease-specific survival at 5 years after cystectomy were not improved in Cohort 2013-15 compared with Cohort 2010-12 with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1.43), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.81-1.29), and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.80-1.41), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study found no improved survival in a national cohort of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy after implementation of NAC. However, reservations should be made regarding the study design and the true effect of NAC on survival outcomes.

The iBLAD study: patient-reported outcomes in bladder cancer during oncological treatment: a multicenter national randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are getting widely implemented, but little is known of the impact of applying PROs in specific cancer diagnoses. We report the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the active use of PROs in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer (BC) undergoing medical oncological treatment (MOT) with focus on determining the clinical effects of using PROs during chemo- or immunotherapy compared to standard of care. METHODS: We recruited patients from four departments of oncology from 2019 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were locally advanced or metastatic BC, initiating chemo- or immunotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 between answering selected PRO-CTCAE questions electronically once weekly with a built-in alert-algorithm instructing patients of how to handle reported symptoms as a supplement to standard of care for handling of side effects (intervention arm (IA)) vs standard procedure for handling of side effects (control arm (CA)). No real-time alerts were sent to the clinic when PROs exceeded threshold values. Clinicians were prompted to view the completed PROs in the IA at each clinical visit. The co-primary clinical endpoints were hospital admissions and treatment completion rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), quality of life (EORTC's QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BLM30) and dose reductions. RESULTS: 228 patients with BC were included, 76% were male. 141 (62%) of the patients had metastatic disease. 51% of patients in the IA completed treatment vs. 56% of patients in the CA, OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.47-1.44, p = 0.51). 41% of patients in the IA experienced hospitalization vs. 32% in the CA, OR 1.48 (95% CI 0.83-2.65, p = 0.17). OS was comparable between the two arms (IA: median 22.3mo (95% CI 17.0-NR) vs. CA: median 23.1mo (95% CI 17.7-NR). Patient and clinician compliance was high throughout the study period (80% vs 94%). CONCLUSIONS: This RCT did not show an effect of PRO on completion of treatment, hospitalizations or OS for BC patients during MOT despite a high level of patient and clinician compliance. The lack of real-time response to alerts remains the greatest limitation to this study.

Status of Metastatic Bladder Cancer Treatment Illustrated by a Case.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide an overview of current treatment guidelines within the context of metastatic bladder cancer illustrated by a case report. DATA SOURCES: International guidelines from The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and scientific references supporting these clinical guidelines. To illustrate the implementation of current evidence-based guidelines a patient case report was presented. CONCLUSION: Historically, there have been limited treatment options available for metastatic bladder cancer for three decades. However, with the introduction of immunotherapy and emergent targeted therapies for metastatic bladder cancer increasing survival rates are expected. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: To achieve improved treatment outcome in people affected by metastatic bladder cancer it is important that both doctors and nurses are aware of contemporary evidence-based treatment options in keeping with ESMO and ASCO international clinical guidelines. Nurses play an important role in educating patients about the potential side effects of therapy and in offering timely, tailored, and supported self-management.

Electronic reporting of patient-reported outcomes in a fragile and comorbid population during cancer therapy - a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is becoming widespread in health care, but the implementation into routine cancer care during therapy remains to be seen. Especially, little is known of the use and success of electronic reporting during active cancer treatment in fragile and comorbid patients. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of ePRO and its incorporation into routine cancer care, measured by physician compliance, for a fragile and comorbid bladder cancer (BC) population receiving chemo- or immunotherapy. METHODS: All BC patients initiating treatment for locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer at Rigshospitalet or Herlev Hospital, Denmark, were approached during an 8 month period. Exclusion criteria were patients not speaking Danish or not being signed up for electronic communication with health authorities. Enrolled patients were prompted to complete weekly ePROs from home. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's general quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30, and the module for muscle-invasive bladder cancer QLQ-BLM30, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS, and selected items from the Patient Reported-Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), in total 158 questions weekly. If failing to report when prompted, patients were sent two e-mail reminders. Patients were informed that the physician would have an overview of the reported ePROs at their following clinical visits. Physicians were at all clinical visits informed to look at the ePROs in a software solution separate from the medical records. Physicians were logged to check their compliance to the task. No continuous surveillance of ePROs was established. RESULTS: Of 91 patients screened for enrolment, 19 patients (21%) were not found eligible for standard treatment, eight patients (9%) were not signed up for electronic communication with the health authorities and nine patients (10%) declined participation. Another six patients did not meet other inclusion criteria. In total 49 BC patients were enrolled, 29 initiating chemotherapy and 20 initiating immunotherapy. A total of 466 electronic questionnaires were completed. The overall adherence of the patients to complete ePROs was at an expected level for an elderly cancer population (75%) and remained above 70% until the 6th cycle of treatment. The physician' compliance was in contrast low (0-52%) throughout the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic reporting of PROs is feasible in a fragile and comorbid population of patients during routine active cancer treatment. Despite clear implementation strategies the physician compliance remained low throughout the study proving the need for further implementation strategies.

An updated review on primary signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder and report of a case.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to emphasize the critical importance of the clinician's awareness of signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) of the urinary bladder, a rare and aggressive disease entity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the current literature was conducted and a classic case of advanced SRCC of the urinary bladder is reported, clearly demonstrating the severity of this disease and the imperative need for standardized recommendations for the diagnostic work-up and management of urinary bladder SRCC. RESULTS: The prognosis for patients with SRCC of the urinary bladder is poor, attributed to presentation at advanced stages following asymptomatic progression, inefficacy of multimodality therapy and possibly an aggressive underlying biological phenotype. Treatment options are limited and not well studied. CONCLUSION: Given the rarity of SRCC, multi-institutional clinical trials and international cooperation are mandatory to improve survival for patients with primary SRCC of the bladder.

Efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and emesis during 5 weeks of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer (the GAND-emesis study): a multinational, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists in the prevention of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting has not been established. The purpose of the GAND-emesis study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: This investigator initiated, multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, included women with cervical cancer scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) for 5 weeks. Patients had to be naive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either single doses of fosaprepitant 150 mg intravenously or placebo (saline) in combination with palonosetron 0·25 mg intravenously and dexamethasone 16 mg orally before cisplatin administration. Randomisation was done by the unmasked pharmacist, who used a list of six numbers (a block) provided in a sealed envelope. A web-based randomisation number generator was used to generate the full list of randomisation numbers that was split up in blocks of six numbers. All patients received oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice a day on day 2, 4 mg twice a day on day 3, and 4 mg once on day 4. The treatment was repeated for 5 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained no emesis after 5 weeks of treatment. The modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received study medication) was used for the statistical analyses. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01074697. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2010, and March 8, 2015, 246 patients from four countries consented to the study and were randomly assigned. Of these, 234 patients were eligible, having received study medication (118 received fosaprepitant, 116 received placebo). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 48·7% (95% CI 25·2-72·2) for the placebo group compared with 65·7% (42·2-89·2) of patients for the fosaprepitant group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group compared with the placebo group (subhazard ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·39-0·87]; p=0·008). Treatments were generally well tolerated with few grade 3 adverse events none of which were related to the study treatment; the most common grade 3 adverse event during the 5 weeks of treatment was diarrhoea (11 [9%] of 118 patients in the fosaprepitant group vs six [5%] of 116 patients in the placebo group). There was only one report of a grade 4 adverse event (neutropenia), in the fosaprepitant group. No deaths were recorded in either group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate safety and efficacy of a NK-1 receptor antagonist during 5 weeks of radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. Patients receiving fosaprepitant in addition to palonosetron and dexamethasone were less likely to experience emesis and nausea compared with those receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone alone. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Further investigations in other radiotherapy settings are warranted. FUNDING: Private and hospital or university funding, unrestricted grants from Biovitrum and Helsinn Healthcare SA.

uPAR Expression Pattern in Patients with Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder--Possible Clinical Implications.

The objective of the present study was to confirm the expression and localisation pattern of the urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) focusing on its possible clinical relevance in patients with urothelial neoplasia of the bladder. uPAR is a central molecule in tissue remodelling during cancer invasion and metastasis and is an established prognostic marker in various cancer diseases other than bladder cancer. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumour-tissue blocks from 186 patients treated with radical cystectomy were analysed. uPAR expression was scored as either negative or positive as well as by the actual score. Separate scores were obtained for cancer cells, macrophages and myofibroblasts at the invasive front and in tumour core. We were able to confirm, in an independent patient cohort, the tissue expression and localisation pattern of uPAR as investigated by Immunohistochemistry as well as a significant association between uPAR positivity and increasing tumour stage and tumour grade. This demonstrates the robustness of our previous and current findings. In addition the association between uPAR positive myofibroblasts and poor survival was reproduced. The highest hazard ratios for survival were seen for uPAR positive myofibroblasts both at the invasive front and in tumour core. Evaluating uPAR expression by the actual score showed a significant association between uPAR positive myofibroblasts in tumour core and an increased risk of cancer specific mortality. Our investigations have generated new and valuable biological information about the cell types being involved in tumour invasion and progression through the plasminogen activation system.

Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression is associated with T-stage and survival in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the expression-and localization pattern of the urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR), focusing on its clinical implications in patients with urothelial neoplasia of the bladder treated with radical cystectomy. uPAR is a central molecule in tissue remodeling during cancer invasion and metastasis and is an established prognostic marker in cancer. The expression and localization of uPAR and its prognostic significance is only limitedly investigated in urothelial bladder neoplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The expression-and localization pattern of uPAR was investigated in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from 149 patients treated with radical cystectomy between 1988 and 2005. uPAR expression was determined by immunohistochemistry and scored as either negative or positive. Separate values were obtained for cancer cells, macrophages, and myofibroblasts at the invasive front and tumor core, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the association of uPAR localization and score with clinicopathologic covariates and survival. RESULTS: uPAR positivity was seen in 122/137 (89%) and 118/149 (74%) of the neoplasias at the invasive front and tumor core, respectively. uPAR was primarily expressed by myofibroblasts and macrophages in the surrounding stroma as well as some cancer cells. A significant association between uPAR positivity and T-stage as well as grade was found for all 3 cell types in tumor core (P ≤ 0.04 for all comparisons). In univariate analysis, the uPAR positive group had a shorter survival than the uPAR negative group (hazard ratio = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.15-5.01; P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: The expression of uPAR is a possible prognostic marker that could be useful in identification of patients with aggressive, highly invasive tumors that could benefit from additional chemotherapy or more intensive follow-up after cystectomy.