Development and Validation of an Inflammatory Prognostic Index to Predict Outcomes in Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve overall survival (OS) in advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (a/mUC) patients. Preliminary evidence suggests a prognostic role of inflammatory biomarkers in this setting. We aimed to develop a disease-specific prognostic inflammatory index for a/mUC patients on ICIs. METHODS: Fifteen variables were retrospectively correlated with OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a development (D, n = 264) and a validation (V, n = 132) cohort of platinum-pretreated a/mUC pts receiving ICIs at L2 or further line. A nomogram and inflammatory prognostic index (U-IPI) were developed. The index was also tested in a control cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy only (C, n = 114). RESULTS: The strongest predictors of OS were baseline platelet/lymphocyte (PLR) and neutrophil/lymphocyte (NLR) ratios, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), NLR, and albumin changes at 4 weeks. These were used to build the U-IPI, which can distinctly classify patients into good or poor response groups. The nomogram scoring is significant for PFS and OS (p < 0.001 in the D, V, and combined cohorts) for the immunotherapy (IO) cohort, but not for the control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a baseline systemic inflammatory profile and the absence of early serum inflammatory biomarker changes are associated with significantly better outcomes on ICIs in a/mUC pts. The U-IPI is an easily applicable dynamic prognostic tool for PFS and OS, allowing for the early identification of a sub-group with dismal outcomes that would not benefit from ICIs, while distinguishing another that draws an important benefit.

Real-world treatment patterns and medical costs of prostate cancer patients in Switzerland - A claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most prevalent cancer in men in Switzerland. However, evidence on the real-world health care use of PC patients is scarce. The aim of this study is to describe health care utilization, treatment patterns, and medical costs in PC patients over a period of five years (2014-2018). METHOD: We used routinely collected longitudinal individual-level claims data from a major provider of mandatory health insurance in Switzerland. Due to the lack of diagnostic coding in the claims data, we identified treated PC patients based on the treatments received. We described health care utilization and treatment pathways for patients with localized and metastatic PC. Costs were calculated from a health care system perspective. RESULTS: A total of 5591 PC patients met the inclusion criteria. Between 2014 and 2018, 1741 patients had outpatient radiotherapy for localized or metastatic PC and 1579 patients underwent radical prostatectomy. 3502 patients had an androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). 9.5% of these patients had a combination therapy with docetaxel, and 11.0% had a combination with abiraterone acetate. Docetaxel was the most commonly used chemotherapy (first-line; n = 413, 78.4% of all patients in chemotherapy). Total medical costs of PC in Switzerland were estimated at CHF 347 m (95% CI 323-372) in 2018. CONCLUSION: Most PC patients in this study were identified based on the use of ADT. Medical costs of PC in Switzerland amounted to 0.45% of total health care spending in 2018. Treatment of metastatic PC accounted for about two thirds of spending.

Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Single Center Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective single-center, single-arm, pilot study, 9 men with advanced PCa underwent PAE. PAE was performed with the use of 250-400 µm Embozene microspheres (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA). International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), urinary peak flow (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) was assessed at 12 weeks and up to 12 months. Changes in total prostate volume (TPV) and tumor responses by PSA, changes in tumor volume and evaluation of tumor regression by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were assessed at 12 weeks after PAE. RESULTS: IPSS reduction in median 6 points (0-19) and a significant decrease in PVR from median 70 (20-600) mL to 10 (0-280) mL could be achieved within 12 weeks after PAE. Median TPV and tumor volumes (TV) increased slightly from 19.7 (6.4-110.8) mL to 23.4 (2.4-66.3) mL and 6.4 (4.6-18.3) mL to 8.1 (2.4-25.6) mL at a median of 12 weeks after the procedure. Significant tumor necrosis (≥ 50%) was found in one patient. Eight patients showed > 50% of viable tumor on post-PAE MRI according to MRI. Only one Clavien-Dindo Grade 1 adverse event related to PAE occurred. CONCLUSIONS: PAE with the use of 250-400 µm microspheres is feasible, safe and effective in some patients with advanced PCa regarding functional outcomes. A cytoreductive effect might be achieved in individual patients but must be further assessed. TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03457805.

Marital Status, Living Arrangement, and Survival among Individuals with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown improved survival among individuals with cancer with higher levels of social support. Few studies have investigated social support and overall survival (OS) in individuals with advanced prostate cancer in an international cohort. We investigated the associations of marital status and living arrangements with OS among individuals with advanced prostate cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN). METHODS: IRONMAN is enrolling participants diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, mHSPC; castration-resistant prostate cancer, CRPC) from 16 countries. Participants in this analysis were recruited between July 2017 and January 2023. Adjusting for demographics and tumor characteristics, the associations were estimated using Cox regression and stratified by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC), age (<70, ≥70 years), and continent of enrollment (North America, Europe, Other). RESULTS: We included 2,119 participants with advanced prostate cancer, of whom 427 died during up to 5 years of follow-up (median 6 months). Two-thirds had mHSPC. Most were married/in a civil partnership (79%) and 6% were widowed. Very few married participants were living alone (1%), while most unmarried participants were living alone (70%). Married participants had better OS than unmarried participants [adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.02]. Widowed participants had the worst survival compared with married individuals (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.22-2.94). CONCLUSIONS: Among those with advanced prostate cancer, unmarried and widowed participants had worse OS compared with married participants. IMPACT: This research highlighted the importance of social support in OS within this vulnerable population.

[Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer-what are rational sequential treatment options?] / Metastasiertes kastrationsresistentes Prostatakarzinom: Welche Sequenzen sind am sinnvollsten?

BACKGROUND: In advanced prostate cancer, disease progression during ongoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is referred to as castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Various therapeutic modalities are available for its treatment, including endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase [PARP] inhibition, radionuclide therapy, and radioligand therapy. OBJECTIVES: This review outlines practical aspects and considerations regarding treatment sequencing in mCRPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The findings are based on existing prospective phase 3 studies that have demonstrated clinically relevant and statistically significant benefits in radiographically progression-free and/or overall survival. RESULTS: Sequential therapy, aside from numerous patient-specific factors, depends on the treatment patients received in the hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) setting. Following pretreatment with ADT alone or ADT plus docetaxel in the mHSPC context, additional endocrine therapy is the standard approach. In the event of progression under combined endocrine therapy initiated in the mHSPC setting, docetaxel currently serves as the standard for the majority of patients. Patients who received triplet therapy as a pretreatment in the mHSPC scenario can be treated with radioligand therapy or second-line chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Various active and well-tolerated treatment options are available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The choice of therapy is primarily determined by previous treatments, but many other individual factors are also taken into consideration.

Interdisciplinary Swiss consensus recommendations on staging and treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

The management of prostate cancer is undergoing rapid changes in all disease settings. Novel imaging tools for diagnosis have been introduced, and the treatment of high-risk localized, locally advanced and metastatic disease has changed considerably in recent years. From clinical and health-economic perspectives, a rational and optimal use of the available options is of the utmost importance. While international guidelines list relevant pivotal trials and give recommendations for a variety of clinical scenarios, there is much room for interpretation, and several important questions remain highly debated. The goal of developing a national consensus on the use of these novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in order to improve disease management and eventually patient outcomes has prompted a Swiss consensus meeting. Experts from several specialties, including urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology and nuclear medicine, discussed and voted on questions of the current most important areas of uncertainty, including the staging and treatment of high-risk localized disease, treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and use of new options to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Novel sequential treatment strategy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC): intravesical recombinant BCG, followed by neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, radical cystectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy and adjuvant immunotherapy - protocol of a multicentre, single arm phase 2 trial (SAKK 06/19).

INTRODUCTION: The combination of checkpoint inhibition and cisplatin-based chemotherapy is investigated in muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and results from phase 2 trials have been presented. Intravesical BCG has been used for non-MIBC (NMIBC) in patients with carcinoma in situ and high-grade Ta/T1 tumours. BCG induces innate and adapted immune response and upregulation of PD-L1 in preclinical models. The proposed trial is intended to implement a new immuno-immuno-chemotherapy induction therapy for MIBC. The combination of BCG and checkpoint inhibition with chemotherapy aims at higher intravesical responses and better local and systemic control of disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAKK 06/19 is an open-label single-arm phase II trial for patients with resectable MIBC T2-T4a cN0-1. Intravesical recombinant BCG (rBCG: VPM1002BC) is applied weekly for three instillations followed by four cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin/gemcitabine every 3 weeks. Atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks is started together with rBCG and given for four cycles. All patients then undergo restaging and radical cystectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Atezolizumab is continued as maintenance therapy after surgery every 3 weeks for 13 cycles. Pathological complete remission is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include pathological response rate (

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background: Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Objective: To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. Design setting and participants: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. Results and limitations: Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results. Conclusions: Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC. Patient summary: We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Randomized Phase II Cabazitaxel Dose Individualization and Neutropenia Prevention Trial in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is ongoing controversy about the recommended dose of cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase II open-label, randomized, parallel-group study compared 3-weekly cabazitaxel at 25 mg/m2 (conventional arm A) with cabazitaxel therapeutic drug monitoring (experimental arm B) in mCRPC. The primary objective was to improve the clinical feasibility rate (CFR), defined as the absence of grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, any thrombocytopenia with bleeding, febrile neutropenia, severe nonhematologic toxicity, withdrawal for cabazitaxel-related toxicity, or death. A total of 60 patients had to be randomized to detect a difference in CFR of 35% (power 80%, two-sided alpha 10%). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were randomized to arm A and 33 patients to arm B. CFR was 69.4% in arm A and 64.3% in arm B (P = 0.79). Week-12 PSA response was 38.5% in both arms. A radiological response by RECIST v.1.1 was seen in 3 (9.7%) patients in arm A versus 6 (23.1%) patients in arm B (P = 0.28), disease progression was higher in arm A compared with arm B (61.3% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.05). Median progression-free survival was longer in arm B compared with arm A (9.5 vs. 4.4 months; HR = 0.46; P = 0.005). Median overall survival was higher in arm B compared with arm A (16.2 vs. 7.3 months; HR = 0.33; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of cabazitaxel in patients with mCRPC is feasible and improves clinical outcome due to individual dose escalations in 55% of patients.

Darolutamide Maintenance in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer With Nonprogressive Disease After Taxane Treatment (SAKK 08/16).

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of darolutamide maintenance after successful taxane chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) 08/16 is a randomized phase II study. Patients with mCRPC who received prior androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) and subsequently had nonprogressive disease on a taxane were randomly assigned to darolutamide 600 mg twice a day or placebo twice a day. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) at 12 weeks. Secondary end points were rPFS, event-free survival, overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 50% response rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 92 patients were recruited by 26 centers. Prior taxane was docetaxel in 93% and cabazitaxel in 7%. Prior ARPI was abiraterone in 60%, enzalutamide in 31%, and both in 9%. rPFS at 12 weeks was significantly improved with darolutamide (64.7% v 52.2%; P = .127). Median rPFS on darolutamide was 5.5 versus 4.5 months on placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.91]; P = .017), and median event-free survival was 5.4 versus 2.9 months (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.73]; P = .001). PSA 50% response rate was improved (22% v 4%; P = .014). Median OS for darolutamide was 24 versus 21.3 months for placebo (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.26]; P = .181). Treatment-related adverse events were similar in both arms. CONCLUSION: SAKK 08/16 met its primary end point, showing that switch maintenance with darolutamide after prior taxane chemotherapy and at least one ARPI resulted in a statistically significant but clinically modest rPFS prolongation with good tolerability. The median OS with darolutamide maintenance appears promising. Should these findings be confirmed in a larger trial, maintenance treatment could be a novel strategy in managing patients with mCRPC, especially those who responded well to prior ARPI.

IRONMAN: A Novel International Registry of Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To describe a newly established international registry recruiting diverse patients with advanced prostate cancer across academic and community practices to address unmet needs in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initiated in 2017, IRONMAN (International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer) is a prospective cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer. The study will enroll 5,000 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), recruited from Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study is collecting datatypes to study variation in care and treatment of advanced prostate cancer across countries and across academic, community-based, and government practices with a focus on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, epidemiologic data, biologic subtypes, and clinician questionnaires. RESULTS: Through July 2022, 2,682 eligible patients were enrolled in 11 of 12 active countries. Sixty-six percent of patients have mHSPC, and 34% have CRPC. On the basis of self-report, 11% of patients are Black and 9% are Hispanic. Five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers are enrolling patients. Globally, 23% of patients report being veterans of military service. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international cohort of people newly diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer designed to describe variations in patient management, experiences, and outcomes. IRONMAN aims to identify optimal treatment sequences to improve survival, understand patient-reported outcomes, and explore novel biomarkers to understand treatment resistance mechanisms. Insights from IRONMAN will inform and guide future clinical management of people with mHSPC and CRPC. This cohort study will provide real-world evidence to facilitate a better understanding of the survivorship of people with advanced prostate cancer.

Incidence and outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with partial or radical nephrectomy in the Cantons St Gallen and Appenzell 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years, the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has remained unchanged in Switzerland and is low compared with other European countries. Partial or radical nephrectomy is the mainstay of treatment in patients with localised disease. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of data from the cancer registry of Eastern Switzerland on patients with surgery for RCC from 2009 to 2018, focusing on a comparison of surgical technique and outcome in tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals. RESULTS: 492 nephrectomies were performed. Out of 441 curative procedures, 226 were radical and 195 partial nephrectomies (20 unknown). At the tertiary hospital, statistically significantly more partial nephrectomies were performed in non-metastatic patients than at non-tertiary hospitals. We demonstrate a trend towards better disease-free survival after partial compared with radical nephrectomy. The 5-year overall survival for patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 was 85%, 83%, and 70% in stage I, II, and III, respectively, compared with 96%, 78%, and 72% for patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2018. CONCLUSION: RCC incidence in Switzerland has been stable during the past decade in contrast to other European countries, and no stage migration occurred. We demonstrated that patients with localised renal cancer at our tertiary centre were more likely to be treated with renal preserving surgery compared with non-tertiary hospitals. This analysis underlines the importance of local cancer registries in the comparison of treatment and outcome over time.

Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps. METHODS: An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus. RESULTS: A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research.

Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Treatment Options.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with considerable diminished overall survival (OS). Standard treatment for metastatic PCa has long been androgen deprivation therapy alone, with patients initially responding to this treatment and then progressing to a castration-resistant phase. SUMMARY: The advent of novel therapeutic agents has changed this paradigm, with high-level evidence that upfront combination therapy with either docetaxel or new hormonal agents results in improved OS for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. In the absence of a comprehensive clinical trial investigating the comparative efficacy and safety of all agents, clinicians are responsible for choosing the most appropriate therapy in close coordination with patients. Furthermore, the same therapeutic agents are also efficient in the castration-resistant phase, leading to the issue of the best therapeutic sequence. Finally, along with systemic therapy and molecular imaging advancements, radiotherapy was investigated in the oligometastatic setting, whether it is to treat the primary tumour or metastases. Key Messages: In this complex landscape, where providers have multiple effective therapeutic options to treat metastatic PCa patients, priority must be given to determine which treatment combination and sequence is best suited to a particular patient, given his comorbidities and preferences.

Swiss germ-cell cancer consensus recommendations.

Approximately 420 men are diagnosed with germ-cell cancer (GCC) in Switzerland each year. Recent international guidelines outline management issues, but many aspects remain controversial in an area of highly individualised treatments. Even more than in other tumour types, in GCC the challenge is to choose exactly the correct treatment for an individual patient. Overtreatment in patients likely to be cured must be avoided to reduce long-term toxicities. On the other hand, treatment intensification is required in patients presenting with adverse prognostic factors. Therefore, referral to expert centres or consultations with an expert for a second opinion is strongly recommended. In 2020, Swiss experts discussed their strategies in a consensus meeting during the virtual Swiss Oncology and Haematology Congress (SOHC) in order to harmonise their concepts and to suggest optimal strategies for the management of GCC patients in Switzerland. Votes on controversial issues were obtained and are presented in this review wherever applicable.

In-depth analysis of the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) - The importance of representation of medical specialty and geographic regions.

The rapid innovation of the treatment and diagnostic procedures in advanced prostate cancer has led to improved outcomes, though uncertainty remains regarding the best management approach in many clinical situations. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed these areas of uncertainty with a multidisciplinary, international expert panel. A total of 57 experts voted on 123 carefully prepared questions. The primary analysis of the APCCC 2019 showed consensus (≥ 75% agreement on one answer) for 33 questions. Here we investigate whether agreement with the consensus answers differed according to medical discipline and region of practice. Overall there was no compelling evidence for group differences of agreement with the consensus answers, i.e. expert sub-groups differed no more than could be expected by chance due to differences between individual experts. All questions that achieved consensus, had at least 50% agreement of each expert sub-group. Furthermore, the set of consensus questions changed only moderately if one of the sub-groups was excluded from the panel. The identification of consensus questions and answers at APCCC 2019 appeared to be robust to the composition of the panel and well supported.